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

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

Why is that when there are so many gay Pentecostals and so many Democrat Pentecostals?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Sam

Why is that when there are so many gay Pentecostals and so many Democrat Pentecostals?

They are repressed maybe? lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That's the political correctness of our country now. Even if it is wrong, they have the right. I know we can't force right and wrong on anyone. It simply cannot logically work anyway, but it is a sad day in our country when these things are accepted as the norm. KWIM?

This isn't political correctness! LOL It's acknowledging an individual's right to privacy regarding more intimate matters. For example, would it be right to regulate what private acts of intimacy a married couple can mutually enjoy together? No way! That's none of our business. If a soldier wants to read a Playboy during his private time in privacy, that's not any of our business. If a female soldier wants to read a romance novel during her private time in privacy, that's none of our business. We can't POLICE people's private lives. Everyone posting here has a private life, married or not. We can't police everyone's private lives, preferences, interests, entertainments, or choices. We can preach reaping and sowing and encourage right private choices. But that realm is largely outside the scope of being policed. The only exception would be in regards to church assembly and leadership. If one's private life comes to light and is "sinful", rebuke and perhaps even disfellowship may be in order. But generally, in a society, our private lives as Christians and their private lives as non-Christians is just that... private.

I knew that's why you were saying. I was just wondering how it worked or what was entailed.

Typically it has to do with improper behavior and/or relationships between superiors and subordinates. But it can be expanded to include improper behavior between individuals in the same place of employment or assignment.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Can we assume that HIV is still very high among prostitutes and those straight service men have just as high a chance of contacting HIV that way?

An HIV-positive Air Force sergeant had sex with at least 11 individuals without informing them of his medical condition or using condoms, according to charges filed late yesterday against the noncommissioned officer.

Sergeant David Gutierrez, 43, met a “multitude” of sex partners at “swinger” parties and through adult web sites. Gutierrez, stationed at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, is a 20-year Air Force veteran who has been in military custody since early last month.

Gutierrez was charged yesterday with a variety of counts, including aggravated assault, indecent acts, obstructing justice, and adultery. He was also accused in a charge sheet, of violating a specific October 2009 order directing him to advise sexual partners of his HIV status. Gutierrez’s wife told investigators that he became infected with HIV while stationed in Italy in 2007, and that upon returning to the U.S. in 2008, he “began having unprotected sex with numerous partners.”

Air Force officials have redacted the names of the 10 women and one man from the Wichita area with whom Gutierrez is alleged to have had sex without disclosing his HIV status. Investigators are continuing to probe Gutierrez and have asked anyone who may have had sexual contact with him to contact Sedgwick County Health Department officials.

The military needs standards.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Twisp

So again, why stop at HIV? Why not start turning people away that are susceptible to any deadly disease? They are potentially weak links, just as you think homosexuals are.

If you are worried about someone getting contracting HIV while serving, just have everyone take routine blood tests. As rgcraig alluded to, this would allow us to know when heterosexual men contract HIV also. Once they contract HIV, then we can sit them out. Problem solved.

If you think that we should disallow homosexuals to serve because they might get HIV, then you should also want us to do that for heterosexuals that partake in activities where they might contract the disease also.

Because as studies show, men can more easily contract and pass around HIV than a woman and it's not treatable. They will eventually die. So, knowing that, they should be excluded from the military, IMO.

We appear to be going round and round on this issue. I'm pretty sure I don't have anything to add or anything that I want to change. I guess that means I'm finished with my end of the conversation. LOL! But, as usual, I always enjoy dialoguing with you, Twisp.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Because as studies show, men can more easily contract and pass around HIV than a woman and it's not treatable. They will eventually die. So, knowing that, they should be excluded from the military, IMO.

We appear to be going round and round on this issue. I'm pretty sure I don't have anything to add or anything that I want to change. I guess that means I'm finished with my end of the conversation. LOL! But, as usual, I always enjoy dialoguing with you, Twisp.

Again, just to be clear, you want to discriminate against a certain group of people, based on what they might contract down the road, but then not apply that standard to another group of people, just because they are slightly less likely to contract that disease?

Do you really not see the illogical aspects of that statement?

I would almost rather you be truthful and just say you don't like homosexuals and want them all to go away. At least I could logically reconcile that with what you believe. It would at least do away with watching you try and explain away illogical thoughts.

[Aquila]

When it comes to HIV, gay or straight, I think one should be disqualified from service. That's a health risk issue, not an issue of sexuality.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When it comes to HIV, gay or straight, I think one should be disqualified from service. That's a health risk issue, not an issue of sexuality.

Agreed. If a person already has it, that is definitely a different situation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Agreed. If a person already has it, that is definitely a different situation.

Regular physicals should also check for this sort of thing.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This isn't political correctness! LOL It's acknowledging an individual's right to privacy regarding more intimate matters. For example, would it be right to regulate what private acts of intimacy a married couple can mutually enjoy together? No way! That's none of our business. If a soldier wants to read a Playboy during his private time in privacy, that's not any of our business. If a female soldier wants to read a romance novel during her private time in privacy, that's none of our business. We can't POLICE people's private lives. Everyone posting here has a private life, married or not. We can't police everyone's private lives, preferences, interests, entertainments, or choices. We can preach reaping and sowing and encourage right private choices. But that realm is largely outside the scope of being policed. The only exception would be in regards to church assembly and leadership. If one's private life comes to light and is "sinful", rebuke and perhaps even disfellowship may be in order. But generally, in a society, our private lives as Christians and their private lives as non-Christians is just that... private.

Yes, I understand this and I agree that we cannot police people. I wouldn't want to because it doesn't change a heart. I'm just saying that I wish we didn't lean so much toward acceptance of the things that are wrong just because they have a right to privacy. It doesn't make anything they are doing right. In other words, it seems that we are becoming comfortable to look the other way because we are in such a PC state of mind and I think that is has bled into the church. I mean, men are fearing to speak out against things, i.e. homosexuality, etc., for fear of being reported as a basher.

Now, I think you can speak against things in a right way. Fred Phelps would be an example of the wrong way and that pastor in Florida that wanted to burn the Koran. There are better ways of speaking against things.

Simply reading and explaining the scripture would be the more correct and calm way to do that.

Typically it has to do with improper behavior and/or relationships between superiors and subordinates. But it can be expanded to include improper behavior between individuals in the same place of employment or assignment.

Right, but what are the repercussions handed down? Demerits, dock in pay?