Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

[leatherneck]

LN, surely you aren't implying that only homosexuals can have/transmit HIV? Wouldn't a bedhopping heterosexual be able to contract HIV and transmit the disease by one of the methods that you mentioned?

 

Yes, a heterosexual would be able to do so. But hetero sex is not near the cause of the spread of HIV as male to male sex is.

[True blue (and gold)]

Yes, a heterosexual would be able to do so. But hetero sex is not near the cause of the spread of HIV as male to male sex is.

 

Link?

[formerkywrestler]

Spread of HIV (made more likely due to the increased likelihood of fluids being contacted due to war injuries) is one.

 

Here's a chart indicating (as of the end of 07) that male to male contact is the predominant singular cause of the spread of HIV. Just think of all the precautions that EMTs use when responding to an injury scene where blood is exposed; gloves, masks, etc. On the battlefield, folks do not have the time to take those precautions. You have to be willing to cover yourself in blood to care for your fellow soldier's, Marine's wounds. If gays are allowed to be in the service, in combat situations, it WILL adversely affect wound care on the battlefield and thus morale.

 

 

Dang it, the chart didn't transfer. Let me try again.

 

It still won't transfer. Anyway, the chart showed that 47% of people affected with HIV in the US got it most likely from male to male sexual contact, which was by far the largest category of transmission.

 

Hionestly I couldn't care less what consenting folks do behind closed doors, but when their behavior can adversely affect (and infect) others, then I care.

I didn't know sexual activity took place when someone got treated for a wound. :confused:

 

Anybody know any hot female nurses? I see some injuries in my future.

[Hearsay]

Bear with me...I'm trying to figure out how being in the proximity of a homosexual increases your chances of contracting HIV....

 

All state high school associations, the NCAA, and most pro organizations now have rules requiring removal of a player or clothing with blood, precisely and exactly because of the risk of blood transfer of HIV.

 

I would say there is a lot of blood in soldiering.

[leatherneck]

Link?

 

just google transmission of HIV and you'll find plenty.

[leatherneck]

All state high school associations, the NCAA, and most pro organizations now have rules requiring removal of a player or clothing with blood, precisely and exactly because of the risk of blood transfer of HIV.

 

I would say there is a lot of blood in soldiering.

 

Bingo. Heck OSHA has a standard for dealing with blood because of the risk of transmission of bloodborne pathogens, which includes HIV. See: http://safety.science.tamu.edu/bloodborne.html

 

We're supposed to be worried about bloodborne pathogens in the factory, but not supposed to worry about it on the battlefield and do what we can to protect those people volunteering to serve from avoidable risks of getting HIV? Serving in the military is risky enough as it is. To me we owe them an obligation to minimize those risks whenever possible and if that means intruding on the "rights" of gays, so be it. While I may be a libertarian at heart, this is clearly one of those times where I think the benefit to the whole (the need to protect military members from unnecessary risks) exceeds the rights of the individual that wants to practice the sexual activities of his choosing.

[True blue (and gold)]

Since homosexuals do currently serve in our military, are there any numbers on any HIV transmissions that are linked via the paths that are being suggested?

[leatherneck]

I didn't know sexual activity took place when someone got treated for a wound. :confused:

 

Anybody know any hot female nurses? I see some injuries in my future.

 

Learn more about HIV transmission: it can be transferred by activities other than sex.

[True blue (and gold)]

Learn more about HIV transmission: it can be transferred by activities other than sex.

 

True, but doesn't this go against your point?

 

If a homosexual tests "clean" of HIV, why then shouldn't he/she be allowed to serve? Or is there even a reason why women homosexuals couldn't serve, if the method of easiest transfer (via semen, quoted from LN) would be absent altogether?

 

Since it CAN also be contracted via heterosexual sex, should we require celebacy of our enlisted men and women?

[leatherneck]

Since homosexuals do currently serve in our military, are there any numbers on any HIV transmissions that are linked via the paths that are being suggested?

 

I don't know. If it's only one, do you think the "right" to be gay and in the military would supercede the effect on the person infected by coming in contact with the gay's blood on the battlefield? I don't. Again, I don't care what two consenting folks do unless and until it increases the risk to others. The most common cause of HIV transmission is male to male sex. HIV can be transmitted via blood. There is a lot of blood on the battlefield. We should take steps to minimize the risk that people will be infected with contaminated blood and the most logical way to do that in my opinion, is to ban the group most likely to be infected with HIV by their participation in the activity that most commonly causes HIV to be transmitted. It's that simple to me.

 

Again, I'm a big individual rights kind of person, but those rights are not unfettered. Sometimes individual rights need to yield to what's in the best interest of society. That's why we don't allow a person's freedom of speech right to permit someone to walk into a crowded theatre and falsely scream fire. And we should not allow gays (which have a higher percentage of HIV contamination) to have a right to be in the military. You can believe me or not, but allowing gays to be in the military would have an adverse effect on the treatment of battlefield injuries and ultimately morale and battlefield discipline. War is to deadly of a business. Frankly, I think the don't ask, don't tell concept is simply stupid and a feeble attempt to split the baby and keep both sides happy. Either gays impose a greater risk and they should be banned or they don't impose a risk and they should be freely accepted. I think they do impose a greater risk and should categorically banned.

[leatherneck]

True, but doesn't this go against your point?

 

If a homosexual tests "clean" of HIV, why then shouldn't he/she be allowed to serve? Or is there even a reason why women homosexuals couldn't serve, if the method of easiest transfer (via semen, quoted from LN) would be absent altogether?

 

Since it CAN also be contracted via heterosexual sex, should we require celebacy of our enlisted men and women?

 

Because you can't blooming test every soldier every so often while out in the field. Think about the logistics involved in that for a second. Lordy, we are going to tell our enemy combatants to stop while we HIV test the platoon or tell the CO we can't send Alpha Company out to support a Company pinned down because they are due for their HIV screen test?

 

It can be transmitted by other means but for the 4th or 5th time, male to male sex is the most prevalent (almost half according to the chart I saw and cannot copy here for some reason) way of transmitting it. Perhaps I'm being too logical in my thinking, but I'd think you'd want to concentrate on eliminating the most common cause of transmission.

 

 

Yeah, we should require celibacy of all service members to minimize the risk if we could effectively do so and still have a military left to fight with. We can much more effectively eliminate that group of individuals engaged in male to male sex that is responsible for 47% of the transmission by banning gays and still have a military.

 

I'm sorry if I'm getting short but this is so logical to a former Marine and I'm getting frustrated with myself for not being able to express what I think is pretty obvious.

 

And no it doesn't go against my point.

[mcpapa]

Can banning gays from the military be seen as depriving a class of people from earning a living?

 

I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.

[True blue (and gold)]

Because you can't blooming test every soldier every so often while out in the field. Think about the logistics involved in that for a second. Lordy, we are going to tell our enemy combatants to stop while we HIV test the platoon or tell the CO we can't send Alpha Company out to support a Company pinned down because they are due for their HIV screen test?

 

It can be transmitted by other means but for the 4th or 5th time, male to male sex is the most prevalent (almost half according to the chart I saw and cannot copy here for some reason) way of transmitting it. Perhaps I'm being too logical in my thinking, but I'd think you'd want to concentrate on eliminating the most common cause of transmission.

 

 

Yeah, we should require celibacy of all service members to minimize the risk if we could effectively do so and still have a military left to fight with. We can much more effectively eliminate that group of individuals engaged in male to male sex that is responsible for 47% of the transmission by banning gays and still have a military.

 

I'm sorry if I'm getting short but this is so logical to a former Marine and I'm getting frustrated with myself for not being able to express what I think is pretty obvious.

 

And no it doesn't go against my point.

 

I appreciate your response and I am not trying to frustrate you, just trying to understand things from your perspective.

[hoopboy]

spreading blood also attracts bears. Do you want that on your conscious???

[Hearsay]

Can banning gays from the military be seen as depriving a class of people from earning a living?

 

I really don't know, that's why I'm asking.

 

Homosexuals are not a protected class.