• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

VanceMack said:
1-Unless things have changed RADICALLY in the last few years, the military is NOT tested for HIV AIDS.

2-Its a POINT...a PROBLEM. If foer no other reason, there will be many who WILL think twice about providing life saving field first aid.

I GET that you want to gloss over every problem so that you can get what you want. It doesnt make it not a problem.

Homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. WHY???
Click to expand...

The military has been tested for HIV/AIDS regularly since before I joined in 87. You are factually incorrect.
 
VanceMack said:
1-Unless things have changed RADICALLY in the last few years, the military is NOT tested for HIV AIDS.

2-Its a POINT...a PROBLEM. If foer no other reason, there will be many who WILL think twice about providing life saving field first aid.

I GET that you want to gloss over every problem so that you can get what you want. It doesnt make it not a problem.

Homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. WHY???
Click to expand...

I started Active duty in '98. I was tested for HIV/AIDS then and every year until I got out in '08. Now in the Navy Reserves, the test is only required once every 2 or 3 years and if the member is called up for IA duty to go work with the Army or Marines in the desert they have to get one.

But it doesn't matter because think about it. There are homosexuals in the military now. I don't know how many times I have to say this. The only thing about now is that you know who fewer of them are especially if they fear that the unit is going to ostracize them for being that way, or worse not perform first aid on them. Of course when DADT is repealed, no one will be required to tell you they're gay, so the risk would still be there. So again, this is full of holes and doesn't work.
 
VanceMack said:
1-Unless things have changed RADICALLY in the last few years, the military is NOT tested for HIV AIDS.

2-Its a POINT...a PROBLEM. If foer no other reason, there will be many who WILL think twice about providing life saving field first aid.

I GET that you want to gloss over every problem so that you can get what you want. It doesnt make it not a problem.

Homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. WHY???
Click to expand...

Roguenuke is correct. The military does test for HIV and HIV positive soldiers aren't automatically discharged.
 
Redress said:
Is this anything like navy beer days? WE seemed to handle them. I bet we could handle being issues whiskey as well. Why do you have such a low opinion of our troops?
Click to expand...

That's the Navy. Not the Army. Two different demographics. I think you would agree that the "class" of person that enlists in the Navy is much different than that that enlists in the Army and branches infantry.

I've seen first hand what happens when a 19 y/o grunt gets drunk off duty, just like I've seen how stupid a 19 y/o grunt can become, while totally sober, on duty. I've seen them show up to first formation, still drunk from the night before and beligerent as hell. I even had a young man think he was ten-foot-tall-and-bullet-proof enough to whip my ass one morning and got his-self a free ride to the troop medical clinic to close up the cuts he received when he accidentally bumped his head against the butt of my weapon.

So, yes, whiskey rations in the United States Army will have a much more adverse effect than they do in the British Army.
 
Redress said:
You brought up gays and taking advantage of military benefits. You tied the two together so that it somehow wrong for gays to join for the benefits. You have yet to explain why gays joining for the benefits is any different than straits joining for the benefits. You simply resort to ad hominem as if that makes your point.

You have not shown how gays would disrupt the service(hint: they do not now). You have not shown why those in the service would not be able to handle what the rest of the country, and other militaries handle trivially. You have not, in point of fact, made any point at all beyond you don't like gays. That is your failure.

You have managed to attempt to suggest that I did not complete my service, which is a flat out lie. I did 6 years and got out honorably at the end of my enlistment. You could easily figure that out since the award is next to every post I make. You will, please, not try and suggest otherwise again.
Click to expand...

Dont be obtuse. In no way did I imply it would be wrong for gays to join to take advantage of the benefits offered. In point of fact I stated it was a legitimate reason for anyone to join. Its a strawman and a VERY weak tactic.
 
Redress said:
The military has been tested for HIV/AIDS regularly since before I joined in 87. You are factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

I served 20 years...deployed over 40 times, 7 times to the middle east. I never took an HIV/AIDS test. Do they test some people? probably...sure...but fdo they test all? No...not unless something has radically changed since 2003.
 
Redress said:
The military has been tested for HIV/AIDS regularly since before I joined in 87. You are factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

You again skirted the very direct question...WHY are homosexuals not allowed to donate blood in the civilian world?
 
VanceMack said:
Dont be obtuse. In no way did I imply it would be wrong for gays to join to take advantage of the benefits offered. In point of fact I stated it was a legitimate reason for anyone to join. Its a strawman and a VERY weak tactic.
Click to expand...

Then what was the point of you bringing that point up? :confused:
 
Military: HIV Tests Every Two Years

May 25, 2004
Under a new Department of Defense policy implemented in late March, members of the U.S. military must be tested for HIV every two years. While the military began HIV testing of service members in the mid-1980s, military branches varied in their frequency of testing, according to the Pentagon news service. Testing every two years would allow the military to administer anti-viral drugs to infected service personnel prior to the onset of illnesses associated with the infection. Service members infected with HIV are not automatically discharged; they may continue to serve. The military reports that its infection rate -- about two new infections for every 10,000 service members annually -- is equal to or lower than the rate for the general population of the same ages and genders.
 
Lightdemon said:
Then what was the point of you bringing that point up? :confused:
Click to expand...

The discussion at the time was what might motivate a very flamboyant (translate 'flaming') homosexual to join the military. I cited possible reasons.

Unlike most people that tap dance around the issues and throw out feel good ideas about the subject I will simply be very direct.
 
VanceMack said:
The discussion at the time was what might motivate a very flamboyant (translate 'flaming') homosexual to join the military. I cited possible reasons.

Unlike most people that tap dance around the issues and throw out feel good ideas about the subject I will simply be very direct.
Click to expand...

And so what if that flamboyant homosexual joins the military?
 
VanceMack said:
You again skirted the very direct question...WHY are homosexuals not allowed to donate blood in the civilian world?
Click to expand...

Discrimination, perhaps?

The fact that heterosexuals can contract HIV/AIDS with their "life styles" and can still donate freely, is very discriminatory against gays.

Begin gay doesn't make you more prone to HIV/AIDS.
 
Lightdemon said:
And so what if that flamboyant homosexual joins the military?
Click to expand...


He/she needs to be trained an educated in how to conduct his/herself like a soldier and that it would be very unprofessional to throw his/her sexual orientation in everyone's face, because ultimately, no one gives a rat's ass. And he/she should also be informed that throwing his/her sexuality in another soldier's face could be considered sexual harassment and thereby punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the DoD's policy against sexual harassment. Most importantly, he/she will be required to meet the same standards as any other soldier, so therfore the, "They're being mean to me because I'm gay", cry-baby **** isn't going to fly.

It's the reason I believe that even if the restriction on gays in the military is lifted, DADT should remain in place for everybody's protection.
 
Lightdemon said:
Discrimination, perhaps?

The fact that heterosexuals can contract HIV/AIDS with their "life styles" and can still donate freely, is very discriminatory against gays.

Begin gay doesn't make you more prone to HIV/AIDS.
Click to expand...

Might have something with an estimated 5% of the US population comprising somewhere around 87% of the victims right up until about the year 2000?

Might have something to do with the gay lifdestyle making them extremely susceptable to HIV?

But you cant (wont) see why that might be one of the problems with eliminating DADT.
 
VanceMack said:
You again skirted the very direct question...WHY are homosexuals not allowed to donate blood in the civilian world?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point of the answer you were given. They aren't allowed to donate blood because the homosexual lifestyle has an increased possibility of contracting HIV. However, this does not mean that all or even most homosexual personnel have HIV/AIDS and the military tests its members for it regularly. And you still have missed the fact that this is a very bad argument since the entire military knows they are all tested for HIV/AIDS at least biannually, that there are military members who are gay in their ranks already, and that there are other ways to contract HIV than just being gay, including drug use, tattoos, sleeping with prostitutes or people you don't know. Funny how you think that the military personnel would be so scared of the gay guy having AIDS but not the guy that sleeps with a different girl every night or the girl that gets the tattoo in a foreign port or anyone else who people know practice the risky behaviors. We do get plenty of training on how HIV is spread and prevention. And those who claim ignorance because they weren't paying attention I'd have to say those are the ones you really should be worried about having it, especially if they're young and single.
 
VanceMack said:
Might have something to do with the gay lifdestyle making them extremely susceptable to HIV?
Click to expand...

Nothing about the gay "lifestyle" makes gays anymore likely to contract HIV.

HIV is primarily spread through anal sex. Hence, men who have anal sex with men are the highest risk group for HIV infection.

However, by that reasoning, lesbians are the lowest risk group for HIV.

Furthermore, just because someone is gay does not mean they engage in anal sex, and as I'm sure you are aware, heterosexuals also engage in anal sex. One of the primary reasons that HIV is so high in Africa (22 million infected) is because anal sex has culturally been practiced by heterosexuals there as a form of birth control.

The policy regarding blood donations has been on the books since the 1970s prior to testing and a lot of other developments. It can be refined to focus on the specific behaviors that spread HIV, namely unprotected anal sex and inter venous drug use.

For you to use the argument that this discriminatory practice is somehow rational seems willfully ignorant. The policy does nothing to protect the blood supply from heterosexuals who practice anal sex, which is considerably naive given that heterosexuals are likely to surpass gays as the primary carriers of the disease before the end of this decade.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Might have something with an estimated 5% of the US population comprising somewhere around 87% of the victims right up until about the year 2000?

Might have something to do with the gay lifdestyle making them extremely susceptable to HIV?

But you cant (wont) see why that might be one of the problems with eliminating DADT.
Click to expand...

Sigh....Lifting DADT doesn't mean that there will be an explosion of gay sex in the military. It doesn't mean that HIV will be epidemic in the barracks.

In fact, even with DADT, there still are homosexuals in the ranks ALREADY. So what is the point really?? DADT isn't keeping homosexuals out of the military, it's just a policy to show that homosexuality is unacceptable. But no one has bothered to say why. Can you tell me why it's unacceptable to say your homosexual? Can you tell me why that by hiding your homosexuality you can serve our military, but the moment to become honest about yourself, you're no longer fit to serve?

Can you answer that for me?
 
VanceMack said:
You again skirted the very direct question...WHY are homosexuals not allowed to donate blood in the civilian world?
Click to expand...

Why is this relevant? Military life is different. You are creating all these "oh no" situations, but none of them go far. Being gay does not mean HIV infection(lesbians are among the absolute lowest risk groups for HIV, and yes, they are gay), being gay does not mean taking advantage of the military for benefits(your words), being gay does not mean flamboyant, being gay does not mean lesser.
 
apdst said:
He/she needs to be trained an educated in how to conduct his/herself like a soldier and that it would be very unprofessional to throw his/her sexual orientation in everyone's face, because ultimately, no one gives a rat's ass. And he/she should also be informed that throwing his/her sexuality in another soldier's face could be considered sexual harassment and thereby punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the DoD's policy against sexual harassment. Most importantly, he/she will be required to meet the same standards as any other soldier, so therfore the, "They're being mean to me because I'm gay", cry-baby **** isn't going to fly.

It's the reason I believe that even if the restriction on gays in the military is lifted, DADT should remain in place for everybody's protection.
Click to expand...

So basically, like every one else, being an idiot would be discouraged. See, no problem.
 
apdst said:
He/she needs to be trained an educated in how to conduct his/herself like a soldier and that it would be very unprofessional to throw his/her sexual orientation in everyone's face, because ultimately, no one gives a rat's ass. And he/she should also be informed that throwing his/her sexuality in another soldier's face could be considered sexual harassment and thereby punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the DoD's policy against sexual harassment. Most importantly, he/she will be required to meet the same standards as any other soldier, so therfore the, "They're being mean to me because I'm gay", cry-baby **** isn't going to fly.

It's the reason I believe that even if the restriction on gays in the military is lifted, DADT should remain in place for everybody's protection.
Click to expand...

Are you saying a flamboyant gay man cannot be trained?

What would be the remedy for that? DADT? No. The remedy would to kick his ass out of the military, and NOT to make a blanket ban for all gays to enlist. That's just asinine.
 
CriticalThought said:
Nothing about the gay "lifestyle" makes gays anymore likely to contract HIV.

HIV is primarily spread through anal sex. Hence, men who have anal sex with men are the highest risk group for HIV infection.

However, by that reasoning, lesbians are the lowest risk group for HIV.

Furthermore, just because someone is gay does not mean they engage in anal sex, and as I'm sure you are aware, heterosexuals also engage in anal sex. One of the primary reasons that HIV is so high in Africa (22 million infected) is because anal sex has culturally been practiced by heterosexuals there as a form of birth control.

The policy regarding blood donations has been on the books since the 1970s prior to testing and a lot of other developments. It can be refined to focus on the specific behaviors that spread HIV, namely unprotected anal sex and inter venous drug use.

For you to use the argument that this discriminatory practice is somehow rational seems willfully ignorant. The policy does nothing to protect the blood supply from heterosexuals who practice anal sex, which is considerably naive given that heterosexuals are likely to surpass gays as the primary carriers of the disease before the end of this decade.
Click to expand...

Yep...that explains the numbers. And it especially dilutes things when you draw in comparitive populations from countries were condoms and even aspirin are rare. Yep.
 
VanceMack said:
Yep...that explains the numbers. And it especially dilutes things when you draw in comparitive populations from countries were condoms and even aspirin are rare. Yep.
Click to expand...

And what about lesbians? Are they okay to enlist in the military openly?
 
Redress said:
Why is this relevant? Military life is different. You are creating all these "oh no" situations, but none of them go far. Being gay does not mean HIV infection(lesbians are among the absolute lowest risk groups for HIV, and yes, they are gay), being gay does not mean taking advantage of the military for benefits(your words), being gay does not mean flamboyant, being gay does not mean lesser.
Click to expand...

I am SIMPLY POINTING OUT the problems that would arise. Unlike most people...I amswered the question. You can disagree...fine. There are MANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. I am simply pointing them out. You can ARGUE with them all you want. It doesnt change the fact that there are and will be problems.
 
VanceMack said:
I am SIMPLY POINTING OUT the problems that would arise. Unlike most people...I amswered the question. You can disagree...fine. There are MANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS. I am simply pointing them out. You can ARGUE with them all you want. It doesnt change the fact that there are and will be problems.
Click to expand...

Except it's not a problem. The military has clear guidelines for HIV testing and how to handle people infected. Gays men would hardly be the only high risk group in the military, and gay women would be the lowest risk group in the military. The problem with your problem is that it is not a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom