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.

 

Probably.

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

No way!

 

SEX is the reason that homosexuals are more heavily affected...not blood loss. This is simply twisting a stat to fit your needs when it really doesn't apply. Fear mongering at it's finest.

No way!

 

SEX is the reason that homosexuals are more heavily affected...not blood loss. This is simply twisting a stat to fit your needs when it really doesn't apply. Fear mongering at it's finest.

 

I think you misunderstood him, former.

 

Regardless of how they GET HIV, it is undeniable that homosexuals as a populace segment have a far, far greater percentage of people who HAVE HIV. It is simply a fact.

 

Then what LN said is that the military is an occupation where blood is transmitted by nature of the profession. He argues that there is a rational basis for concern that homosexuals are in the military because that greatly increases the risk that HIV-infected blood is transmitted. It is sheer statistics, nothing else, no fear mongering.

If you look at percentage of population blacks are a high risk group as well. Should they not be allowed to serve?

If you look at percentage of population blacks are a high risk group as well. Should they not be allowed to serve?

 

Once again- I'm reserving judgment on this issue- but that's a good point, woodsrider. But seeing you defending gay rights is showing your true colors, you liberal hippie Democrat! :D

Once again- I'm reserving judgment on this issue- but that's a good point, woodsrider. But seeing you defending gay rights is showing your true colors, you liberal hippie Democrat! :D

:sssh:

I think you misunderstood him, former.

 

Regardless of how they GET HIV, it is undeniable that homosexuals as a populace segment have a far, far greater percentage of people who HAVE HIV. It is simply a fact.

 

Then what LN said is that the military is an occupation where blood is transmitted by nature of the profession. He argues that there is a rational basis for concern that homosexuals are in the military because that greatly increases the risk that HIV-infected blood is transmitted. It is sheer statistics, nothing else, no fear mongering.

It is generally agreed upon within the medical community that you have a better show of hitting the powerball than contracting HIV via an open wound. It is a moot point and still fear mongering.

I haven't been able to find any statistics on war-wound HIV contraction. Does anyone have anything on this?

It is generally agreed upon within the medical community that you have a better show of hitting the powerball than contracting HIV via an open wound. It is a moot point and still fear mongering.

 

I'm not sure what medical community you are consulting with, but if blood of an HIV infected person gets in the eyes or mouth of a medical responder (particularly if the medical responder himself has an open wound in his mouth, but not necessary just if the medical responder has an open wound in his mouth), the medical responder does indeed run the risk of getting infected. To you that risk or likelihood may seem insignificant, but to me it seems significant enough to outweigh the "social benefits" of allowing gays to serve.

 

Google "transmission of HIV through an open wound".

 

And would you please stop the fear mongering silliness. It's rather childish.

I haven't been able to find any statistics on war-wound HIV contraction. Does anyone have anything on this?

 

My guess is that anything you'd find would be pretty irrelevant because of the lack of gays that have served in the military during war, wouldn't it? I may be missing something, but the outright ban prior to "don't ask, don't tell" and even the "don't ask, don't tell" policy itself has greatly limited the number of gays that have served in the military, particularly during combat which would skewer any statistics.

My guess is that anything you'd find would be pretty irrelevant because of the lack of gays that have served in the military during war, wouldn't it? I may be missing something, but the outright ban prior to "don't ask, don't tell" and even the "don't ask, don't tell" policy itself has greatly limited the number of gays that have served in the military, particularly during combat which would skewer any statistics.

 

I understand the concern. I really do. However, I just don't feel that it's a valid reason to prohibit gays from being in the military. There are other groups of people that are at high risk of contracting HIV, such as those that have sex with multiple partners and those that have been drug users. The basics of why homosexual males have higher a risk of contracting HIV (and correct me if I am wrong) is the lack of use of condoms (not needed for pregnancy prevention, obviously). Therefore, any person that has sex without the use of condoms runs a risk of contracting HIV through sexual transmission.

 

Does the military not screen for HIV before the person joins? Trust me, I understand that further screening from that point on may not occur. However, I don't see the need to discriminate against homosexuals for this reason any more than needing to discriminate against ANY individual that does not use condoms.

 

If the "don't ask don't tell" policy turns into the "open door" policy, how many homosexual males do you think will join? Does anyone see big droves of enlistees? I really don't think that it's going to change that much.

 

Two additional comments: First, I don't think that your intention, LN, is fearmongering. Secondly, I do think that the basis for many (not you, LN) not wanting gays in the military is simply because they don't like them. They don't interact with them in other situations and don't want to be forced to do so in this setting.

My perspective:

 

It is as wrong to deny gays the right to serve and protect their country as it would be to deny any other group....women, blacks, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians...ANY group.

 

Sexual preference should not be a determining factor.

 

In the civilian world, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate based upon sexual preference.

 

In my mind, the military are employers. They can be selective, sure. But that selectivity should be based upon ability, not sexual preference, religion, gender, etc.

 

Additionally, the fear of homosexuals by heterosexuals is as insane as women being afraid of all men because there are some that are rapists.

 

Google the number of sexual assaults against women in the military. I'm attaching a link to a source most of you respect, but it's only one of many.

 

Fox News

My perspective:

 

It is as wrong to deny gays the right to serve and protect their country as it would be to deny any other group....women, blacks, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians...ANY group.

 

Sexual preference should not be a determining factor.

 

In the civilian world, it's illegal for an employer to discriminate based upon sexual preference.

 

In my mind, the military are employers. They can be selective, sure. But that selectivity should be based upon ability, not sexual preference, religion, gender, etc.

 

Additionally, the fear of homosexuals by heterosexuals is as insane as women being afraid of all men because there are some that are rapists.

 

Google the number of sexual assaults against women in the military. I'm attaching a link to a source most of you respect, but it's only one of many.

 

Fox News

 

The bolded is not correct. Sexual preference is not a protected class.

 

And the laws are not the same in the military. Never have been. For instance, it is still an enforced law that officers shall not marry enlisted personnel. There are still things from time to time where they will court martial officers for adultery. The multiple partner sex that is mentioned, as well as the illicit drug use, is grounds for kicking out of the service.

 

Behavior that the civilian world tolerates the military world does not, and homosexual behavior is part of it. Those things, sad to say, may be breaking down, but that doesn't mean it should.

I would like to know how many people that are posting in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military has actually served in the military themselves? I know a lot of people who argued that women should be able to hold military positions that would put them in combat situations and then talked about how stupid our military was when women soldiers started getting captured which led to them being raped and sometimes worse. The military has a set of rules that have been put in place to ensure the disciplne, moral and fight readiness of the soldiers who serve. I am a former U.S. Marine and I understand the need for the rules and regulations that our military has established. I am a person who tries not to judge people because of their human characteristics but try to judge people based on their actions. I will not commet on the direct subject of this thread but I do support our countries military and I will say that you can't apply all the rights and priviledges of our society to our military. But, I think everyone should remeber it is because of our military that we have the rights and priviledges that we have. If you can read this thank a teacher, If you can read this in English thank a soldier.................Semper Fi!

I would like to know how many people that are posting in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military has actually served in the military themselves? I know a lot of people who argued that women should be able to hold military positions that would put them in combat situations and then talked about how stupid our military was when women soldiers started getting captured which led to them being raped and sometimes worse. The military has a set of rules that have been put in place to ensure the disciplne, moral and fight readiness of the soldiers who serve. I am a former U.S. Marine and I understand the need for the rules and regulations that our military has established. I am a person who tries not to judge people because of their human characteristics but try to judge people based on their actions. I will not commet on the direct subject of this thread but I do support our countries military and I will say that you can't apply all the rights and priviledges of our society to our military. But, I think everyone should remeber it is because of our military that we have the rights and priviledges that we have. If you can read this thank a teacher, If you can read this in English thank a soldier.................Semper Fi!

 

 

I am a person who supports WHOMEVER is willing and able to hold whatever position they qualify for in the military. I have not served in the military, but have friends (male and female) who have. One of my friends just qualified as a Marine Officer candidate...she's a female pilot.

 

Congratulations to her!

 

Thank you for your service, as I certainly do appreciate it. However, I don't believe that simply because you have served makes you right about an opinion that denies the right and privilege to others. If our military is protecting the rights and privileges of all Americans, then I definitely feel the right to serve should be one of those rights currently being denied.

 

From many assertions on this board when the rights of women and homesexuals to serve in the military come up, it seems that only heterosexual males have any right to the privilege of serving in the military, and to combat.

 

From reports that I've read, men who are captured have been raped as a part of their torture as well. I don't believe the risk of being captured and raped is any more heinous or great for females than males. However, the risk of a female being raped by one of the wonderful, privileged heterosexual males she serves WITH is about 33%. But no one ever talks about that. Is it that this is just considered something that women should have to get used to if in the military?