Posted on 07/14/2009 2:31:54 PM PDT by areukiddingme1
“Aren’t gays already allowed in the military?”
Curious question.
I’m simply going to answer your question with a question — Is June 15th, 2009 really your first day on FReerepublic?
Why the post? Are you truly concerned with the health and efficiency of the military or are you trying to further the homosexual agenda with isolated examples? I suspect the latter.
Really! You really think I’m trying to further the homosexual agenda??? Really? You got that from what I wrote?
No, that would be July 15th, 2009, although I’ve read through the forums without an account before today. Would you like to remain on-topic now?
“Aren’t gays already allowed in the military? How does letting them serve openly affect this?”
“Aren’t gays already allowed in the military?”
That is one of those lawyer questions.
I was in the Navy for twenty years — Were there homos in the Navy during that time? Certainly.
Did I know? No!
If they were banned from serving, then the likely hood of someone being infected with HIV/AIDS would go down as a result of a blood transfusion or accidentally coming into contact with an others blood. Serving in the military is privledge and some people make life choices that prevent them from serving — Others have life choices made for them at birth — Either way, it is what is.
The CDC’s stats are pretty clear on “who” contracts HIV/AIDS? This is a gay thing...
Open gays in authority positions have been known to sexually harass those men or women under them in civilian life. When that happens in the firehouse, say, it is one degree of danger for violence. But should homosexual harassment or rejection occur in the pressure cooker of the battlefield...I don't know what would happen. It is making the social stress of the military even more stressful.
As a comparison, there was a lot of racial murder in the military during the Viet Nam war. That was a necessary integration due to our constitution and history. Race is race and homosexuality is sexual behavior so the comparison is really not truthful. But a lot of soldiers died for that racial integration - especially white soldiers. Integrating females in more recent decades has not always been without it's stress and danger - for women.
And then there are the added physical disease problems you and others have mentioned on this thread adding more stress to the battlefield.
Why would the military travel into homosexuality other than because the far left says so? Is political correctness now the state religion? Because most soldiers have their own religions and homosexual behavior is not something they want to be bothered with. They are going to hurt the military's reputation and appeal to young men.
It seems like the most efficient way to stop the spread of blood-borne diseases would be to actually test everyone for those diseases instead of rejecting people who may be in perfectly good health merely because of their membership within a demographic group.
SJ, excellent points all — More food for thought.
“Why would the military travel into homosexuality other than because the far left says so?...They are going to hurt the military’s reputation and appeal to young men.”
I have argued those very points ad nauseam time and time again... — In some cases actually coming to a brawl. The left knows absolutely nothing about the military and everyone would be far better off just dropping this. No one will win. I had forgotten about Viet Nam and the racial violence and fragging that went on...Excellent point.
texas101, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this — I will never change my mind on this issue — EVER!
Everyone does get blood tested upon recruitment and annually during your physical exam, however, as posted in this thread there is also the issue of; “...the added physical disease problems you and others have mentioned on this thread adding more stress to the battlefield.”
Bottom line up front — being accepted into the military isn’t simply about what is best for the individual — It is what is best for the military.
So, being in perfectly good “physical” health (at that moment) doesn’t mean that HIV/AIDS isn’t still in the individuals blood stream (or, that that individual isn’t in a much much higher risk category for contracting HIV/AIDS) — It has been known to lay dormant in the body for months/years so the spread of the disease can occur without the victims ever knowing they were being infected by someone with HIV/AIDS — Why not avoid the risk entirely by not allowing a “high risk” group into the military in the first place. That is called prevention and it is a pretty smart thing to do IMO.
I agree with you, this is about what is best for the military. And the military currently spends millions to recruit new members. I really don’t think it makes any sense to deny anyone the opportunity to serve this nation on the basis that not they, but other people have a disease. HIV does not lie dormant. It can be detected within a few weeks after infection in blood tests.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.