Don't Ask, Don't Tell Costs Millions

There's no such thing as privacy in the military.

Look folks, I'm not condining homosexuality. But if a man wants to serve his country, he should be allowed to serve his country. Period.

 

No, just yours.

As I said - Absolutely NOT and I might add ridiculous.

A deeper look into the thoughts of JohnV…I’m not a doctor but I play one in my head.

 

You don't think 47% says anything about there being an increased risk for men who have sex with men (MSM)?

One of your unanswered questions in the statistics you quoted is how many of the heterosexual cases could be traced back to a MSM person and then how many of the needle cases can also be traced back to an MSM person.

If they were all traced to their absolute source, I believe almost all cases of HIV would be traced to men who have sex with men.

 

As I said, that was the opinion of those I know who served. You oviously disregarded that fact.

Your'e entitled to your $.02. I differ with it. IMO, if someone wants to serve his country, let him serve.

This is the part where you resort to namecalling, bullying, etc. Not uncommon in your posts. I was hoping this would be different. Obviously not.

 

Filmproducer
Here are your exact words.

I would say your argument is more than weak it is unfounded. Since HIV/AIDS is widespread in the homosexual community.

Where was this stated in this thread?

 

I think you're right, but I'm not sure.

Regardless of whether the soldier is gay ro straight, if the soldier contracted it via fornication, then that soldier should be dishonoraby discharged. Period. Any soldier who engages in fornication, whether he caught HIV or any disease, or no disease, should, imo, be dishonorably discharged.

Physicians and nurses are carful to not be pricked by any needle that contains body fluids.

I didn't say it can't, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. It's much more likely that you'll catch other diseases (everything from the common cold to ghonorrea). But catching any disease in this manner on the battlefield is currently a rarity. That's due to the fact that, regardless of what one thinks, direct open wound to direct open wound contact on the battlefield is uncommon. Prolonged contact is even more rare.

 

How bizarre. Perhaps I should let my family and friends who serve in the military (male and female) be informed of this theory of showering with homosexuals.
They must have missed the memo…

 

Feel free. But don't think this was my opinion. This was the opinion of others who served.

 

Well JohnV that is precisely what you said. Here are you literal words.

I detect a bit of double talk.

 

No, you detect your own taking a post out of context. Here's what I said:

"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."

Carpro knew what I saw saying. Carpro disagrees with me, but respect me, and I him. You're simply trying to stir the pot by causing trouble and dividing the brethren. Kindly refrain from doing so, in favor of posts that are respectful of others in this thread.

 

I think you're right, but I'm not sure.

Regardless of whether the soldier is gay ro straight, if the soldier contracted it via fornication, then that soldier should be dishonoraby discharged. Period. Any soldier who engages in fornication, whether he caught HIV or any disease, or no disease, should, imo, be dishonorably discharged.

Physicians and nurses are carful to not be pricked by any needle that contains body fluids.

I didn't say it can't, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. It's much more likely that you'll catch other diseases (everything from the common cold to ghonorrea). But catching any disease in this manner on the battlefield is currently a rarity. That's due to the fact that, regardless of what one thinks, direct open wound to direct open wound contact on the battlefield is uncommon. Prolonged contact is even more rare. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv, I can't imagine why it would be any more unlikely to be transmitted on the battlefield than it is doctor to patient.

You may not realize how freely body fluids (blood) flow on the battlefield. Blood and tissue can be everywhere. Many of the wounded are first treated by others that are themselves wounded or bleeding from superficial wounds. They can't take the time to put on latex gloves.

And they don't deserve to get AIDS for trying to save another soldiers life.

 

Ohhh, okay...

Thanks for clearing that up...I did not realize your entire statement was a direct quote from you cousin? And of course we cannot leave filmproducer out who heard the same thing.

 

It’s regretful that your own words contradict your previous statement, but to blame me is weird.

 

That's what one would think, but studies conducted by the VA, most recelty during and after the Gulf War and during the Iraq War, don't show such increases. In fact, during the Gulf War troops were expected to come down with increased cases of sand fly fever and malaria due to the location, but they did not. There was one case of West Nile, and seven cases of malaria, and that was it (it was expected that there would be hundreds of cases).

They don't deserve to get any disease when trying to save another's life. That's why I would favor those cases cause for ineligibility to serve in the military.

 

Enoch,

I'm sorry, but what is your problem? Just because you do not believe something does not mean that others are "making" it up. As a Christian you should want to reasonably debate your point of view with others. The argument does not exactly hold weight among non Christians, therefore, any logical person would want to strengthen their position by providing some type of proof, or at least a better response, than "Completely absurd". For the record, I did say that Carpo's argument was logical, but wanted to mention that there are other arguments out there. While it may be logical, there is not proof that this is a problem, or that it will become a problem in the future.

 

That's what one would think, but studies conducted by the VA, most recelty during and after the Gulf War and during the Iraq War, don't show such increases. In fact, during the Gulf War troops were expected to come down with increased cases of sand fly fever and malaria due to the location, but they did not. There was one case of West Nile, and seven cases of malaria, and that was it (it was expected that there would be hundreds of cases).
</font>[/QUOTE]But no test has been done using the AIDS virus, nor will there be. It's far too dangerous.

I suggest that these studies tell us less than nothing about the possible spread of the AIDS virus under battlefield conditions.

 

I'm not sure that you're referring to. You means research on the topic using the live HIV virus? There's no need for such testing. We know in detail and with great accuracy the methods and rates of HIV infection. Now, in regards to battlefield studies, I know that the VA routinely gathers information on such things, and to date, it doesn't appear that bloodborn diseases transmit at a significantly higher rate in combat as mentioned that elsewhere. I'm no expert, but it's probably due to the difficulty that it takes to actually spread bloodborn diseases. Again, I'm no expert, and would be interested in seeing data if they ever did an HIV-specific study on the topic.

 

You don't think 47% says anything about there being an increased risk for men who have sex with men (MSM)?

One of your unanswered questions in the statistics you quoted is how many of the heterosexual cases could be traced back to a MSM person and then how many of the needle cases can also be traced back to an MSM person.

If they were all traced to their absolute source, I believe almost all cases of HIV would be traced to men who have sex with men. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course I am not denying an increased risk among homosexual males. I thought I made that clear. I was just pointing out that unprotected heterosexual sex is just as dangerous. 33% is not a small number.

As far as tracing HIV/AIDS back to a single person, especially considering the promiscuity nowadays, is highly unlikely.

The CDC has a separate number for the needle cases. Of the estimated 332,578 males reported to be living with HIV, not AIDS, 19% were IDU's, (drug users). Of that 19% only 7% were MSM IDU's.

Just because you believe all HIV/AIDS can be traced back to homosexuals does not make it true. It cannot be scientifically determined. My point was that HIV/AIDS infection rates are high among heterosexual sex also. Not as high, but high just the same. So once again, it is a weak argument. Not to mention the fact that I believe HIV infection makes you ineligible to serve.

 

carpro is absolutely right:

It's really the bottom line. The military is not about accommodating a group of people just so they can serve.

WADR to Johnv, his solution of "just provide separate showers" is unrealistic. If it creates a problem having homosexuals in military, then keep them out, don't try "workarounds" to allow them in. It's not about "the least we can do" to allow those who want to serve to do so. It's about providing for the defense of this country and maintaining good order and discipline in the ranks in order to accomplish that task. Filmproducer makes a good point as to whether communal showers are a problem in the first place, though. The problem is the effect of the presence of homosexuals on the good order and discipline of the troops. But, as to that issue, I disagree with carpro that "it would cost almost nothing." First of all, again, we should not be trying a workaround; secondly, there is now already male/female segregation in areas that used to be male only. To further segregate such facilities is not a simple, inexpensive solution.


Johnv,

But if a man wants to serve his country, he should be allowed to serve his country. Period.

Period? Does that mean we should now allow physically handicapped to serve? The military is not about making exceptions, folks.


IAB,

My husband is a retired Navy Chief, and after serving on a submarine for most of his 26 years in the military, he has some very strong opinions on this subject...

Navy Chiefs have strong opinions on a lot. My respects to a fellow squid.