Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Going by this logic, we should not allow anyone that smokes, due to their likelihood of getting a form of cancer, or allow anyone who drinks, due to their likelihood of getting liver disease, or allow and one who does not eat healthy, due to their likelihood of having a heart condition. lol



Same faulty logic as the previous statement. We should not let anyone in that smokes, as they are at a higher risk of getting cancer, and thereby not be able to deploy.



You should take it a step further, and not let anyone with a STD serve. Of course, then a lot of straight military personnel would have to quit also.



No, it's incompatible with your thinking. It is very compatible with the military, since there are already homosexuals serving. All of your points can easily be used against heterosexual personnel as well.

I've noticed that with Coadie an extreme position is all he can embrace. It's a personality issue. Coadie can't seem to find middle ground or balanced opinion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Going by this logic, we should not allow anyone that smokes, due to their likelihood of getting a form of cancer, or allow anyone who drinks, due to their likelihood of getting liver disease, or allow and one who does not eat healthy, due to their likelihood of having a heart condition. lol



Same faulty logic as the previous statement. We should not let anyone in that smokes, as they are at a higher risk of getting cancer, and thereby not be able to deploy.



You should take it a step further, and not let anyone with a STD serve. Of course, then a lot of straight military personnel would have to quit also.



No, it's incompatible with your thinking. It is very compatible with the military, since there are already homosexuals serving. All of your points can easily be used against heterosexual personnel as well.

We've made great strides toward the issue of smoking. Surveys are showing that smoking has decreased and those that do smoke, smoke less per day. That is progress. Another bright statistic - On average, smokers die fourteen years earlier than nonsmokers which reduces the cost to Social Security and Medicare. LOL! Okay, that was only sort of funny.

And STD's are treatable. HIV is a fatal disease. Not even a good comparison, Twisp.

I agree with this comment by Aquila - "However, if a soldier is "outed" I don't think they should be dismissed merely on preference. I believe some indecent action or unwelcomed advance should be the grounds for dismissal."

I would only add that an additional grounds for dismissal should include anyone coming back as HIV positive. Aids can be passed around, cancer cannot.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've noticed that with Coadie an extreme position is all he can embrace. It's a personality issue. Coadie can't seem to find middle ground or balanced opinion.

There is right and there is wrong.

People pleasers are afraid to take a position and risk being unpopular.

Half right and half wrong is a personality defect.

Half pregnant?

Elijah asked why halt between 2 opinions. The problem with political correctness is that everything must be tolerated (except Christians that still have strong beleifs).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is right and there is wrong.

People pleasers are afraid to take a position and risk being unpopular.

Half right and half wrong is a personality defect.

Half pregnant?

Elijah asked why halt between 2 opinions. The problem with political correctness is that everything must be tolerated (except Christians that still have strong beleifs).

Well, since I've already been called "Coadie" by one of our new Admins, I have to say that I do agree with you here.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Going by this logic, we should not allow anyone that smokes, due to their likelihood of getting a form of cancer, or allow anyone who drinks, due to their likelihood of getting liver disease, or allow and one who does not eat healthy, due to their likelihood of having a heart condition. lol



Same faulty logic as the previous statement. We should not let anyone in that smokes, as they are at a higher risk of getting cancer, and thereby not be able to deploy.



You should take it a step further, and not let anyone with a STD serve. Of course, then a lot of straight military personnel would have to quit also.



No, it's incompatible with your thinking. It is very compatible with the military, since there are already homosexuals serving. All of your points can easily be used against heterosexual personnel as well.

Looks like normal soldiers will need to sleep with one eye open.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

There is right and there is wrong.

People pleasers are afraid to take a position and risk being unpopular.

Half right and half wrong is a personality defect.

Half pregnant?

Elijah asked why halt between 2 opinions. The problem with political correctness is that everything must be tolerated (except Christians that still have strong beleifs).

Coadie, I was in the military. I was a medic. I've known gay, bi, and just "freaky" soldiers. In my unit the most promiscuous soldiers were the straight soldiers. The few gay soldiers I knew were a small minority and typically kept to themselves for fear of trouble and perhaps even being physically assulted by other soldiers. One gay soldier was Sgt. Williams. Out of his entire squad, he is the one soldier that I know I could trust and rely on in combat.

Now, the most outrageous perverts who slept with anything (female) were straight guys in the 19D section.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, since I've already been called "Coadie" by one of our new Admins, I have to say that I do agree with you here.

A close friend became an HR director for a large city. He actually had a short person apply for a job to become a fireman. They have height and weight minimums and also vision standards. This short person was wearing very thick glasses. He took the application and said no. They could see if they lost their glasses and couldn't help drag a partner out from a fire. They screamed discrimination.

This is what we get from political correctness.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

Looks like normal soldiers will need to sleep with one eye open.

Coadie, were you in the military?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

We've made great strides toward the issue of smoking. Surveys are showing that smoking has decreased and those that do smoke, smoke less per day. That is progress. Another bright statistic - On average, smokers die fourteen years earlier than nonsmokers which reduces the cost to Social Security and Medicare. LOL! Okay, that was only sort of funny.

Whether we have made strides towards decreasing smoking or not, the comparison still stands. If you do not want homosexuals in the military because you do not want to pay for their long-term health care if they get HIV, then the same logic applies to smokers and cancer.

And STD's are treatable. HIV is a fatal disease. Not even a good comparison, Twisp.

As far as it being terminal, who cares? There are lots of diseases that are terminal and we don't preclude people from joining the military just because they have a chance to get them.

I agree with this comment by Aquila - "However, if a soldier is "outed" I don't think they should be dismissed merely on preference. I believe some indecent action or unwelcomed advance should be the grounds for dismissal."

I would only add that an additional grounds for dismissal should include anyone coming back as HIV positive. Aids can be passed around, cancer cannot.

Herpes, gonorrhea and other STDs are just as spreadable as AIDS, and more likely to be spread. While not necessarily leading to death as AIDs does, they still have symptoms that can easily cause a soldier to not be prepared to go to battle or to their post.

Where do you draw the line? If you do not want one disease in the military, then you have to start looking at all of them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

A close friend became an HR director for a large city. He actually had a short person apply for a job to become a fireman. They have height and weight minimums and also vision standards. This short person was wearing very thick glasses. He took the application and said no. They could see if they lost their glasses and couldn't help drag a partner out from a fire. They screamed discrimination.

This is what we get from political correctness.

But a gay man who stands at 6 foot 7, able to bench 280 pounds, with 20/20 vision should be disqualified?

If I'm in a burning building and a firefighter pulls me out... I really don't care if he's got a wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend. That's his private business.