Don't Ask, Don't Tell Costs Millions

The report does not state whether this amount is over and above the cost of the previous policy so it's rather meaningless.

 

Am not interested enough to look it up. My comment was that it was basically a sloppy article not to have made that clear.

As I understand, don't ask, don't tell is illegal because it violates statute, but I don't have the details on that.

 

with some minor variations.

 

FTR makes a very good point. The report doesn't say what previous number were, so it cannot be concluded that the DADT policy resulted in a greater expense.

Regardless of the issue, I've never been able to figure out why a homosexual soldier's blood and sacrifice is of less value on the field than heterosexual's blood and sacrifice. I've never been in favor of the DADT policy, but I've also never been in favor of disallowing gays from serving theri country. Let' em serve. All unmarried officers (gay and straight) should understand that any acts of fornication are grounds for dishonorable discharge. Same for any married personnel that are married, in case of infidelity.

 

If that was all there was to it, I might agree.

But putting a homosexual male in a barracks full of men using communal showers is tantamount to putting a heterosexual male in a barracks full of females with communal showers.

Then there's the problem of dealing with possible exposure to HIV body fluids on the battlefield.

 

Excellent point Carpro.

 

double post

 

Carpo,

You first argument makes sense, although I'm sure it would be difficult to prove. (As communal showers have not been a problem under the DADT, when a solier is gay) In this day and age, who knows.

Your second argument, however, is very weak. Homosexual soldiers are not more likely to have HIV than a hetrosexual soldier. HIV can affect hetro or homosexuals, equally, if they are sexually promiscuous and do not use protection.

 

Are you denying that the incidence of aids is higher amongst homosexual males than it is heterosexuals?

 

Filmproducer
Apparently you are not aware of HIV/AIDS being widespread in the homosexual community. What rock do you live under?

 

I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

But, if it's an issue, provide separate showers.

HIV can't be contracted in the manner your'e describing. The HIV virus simply isn't that strong. Even if it was copious bleeding wound in contact with another copious bleeding wound, the chances are extremely unlikely. However, it would be false to simply assume that if a soldier is gay, then he must be HIV positive. If that's an issue, then make HIV an ineligibility to serve. I don't know what the current policy is on enlisted heterosexuals who have HIV. But I'd imagine that extending that same policy to all with HIV should mitigate the issue.

 

Completely absurd.

Absolutely NOT and I might add ridiculous.

Good thing your not practicing medicine.

 

The opinions of military men who served is absurd? Whatever.

Why is it ridiculous to accommodate someone who wants to serve his country? You'd think that's the least we could do.

You clearly do not, otherwise you would not make such an ignorant statement.

 

Carpo and Enoch,

I am not denying the infection rate among homosexual men, I was just pointing out that it is high for heterosexual contact also. So may I ask, what rock are YOU living under? Being gay does not automatically mean you are HIV positive. Being heterosexual does not guarantee you will not contract HIV.

According to the CDC's report, "Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States, 2004", 47% of MSM, (male sex male), accounted for all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004. 33% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004 were the result of HETEROSEXUAL contact. Both numbers are high, IMO. So once again, the argument was weak.

 

I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

I have heard this also, hence my statement that it has not been a problem, thus far. Logically Carpo's argument makes sense, but there is no concrete proof that communal showers have been a problem for homosexuals.

 

I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

But, if it's an issue, provide separate showers.

HIV can't be contracted in the manner your'e describing. The HIV virus simply isn't that strong. Even if it was copious bleeding wound in contact with another copious bleeding wound, the chances are extremely unlikely. However, it would be false to simply assume that if a soldier is gay, then he must be HIV positive. If that's an issue, then make HIV an ineligibility to serve. I don't know what the current policy is on enlisted heterosexuals who have HIV. But I'd imagine that extending that same policy to all with HIV should mitigate the issue. </font>[/QUOTE]Not being homosexual, I can only guess what stimulates them sexually, but we all should know that men , in general, are sexually stimulated visually. Are homosexuals different? I doubt it.

Separate showers? Why not? That would cost almost nothing to try to prevent a problem the military shouldn't have in the first place.

HIV probably already does cause ineligibility to serve, however if a soldier willfully contracts it while in the service, does the Army have to take care of him medically for the rest of his life,like other service related disabilities?

I wonder why physicians and nurses who work with AIDS patients are so careful not to even be pricked by a needle that has been used on an Aids patient and are required to be screened when it happens.


But it can't happen on the battlefield?

Puh Leeze.