[thepostman]

The main things I have a problem with is saying that military members won't reenlist if this is overturned and because of this a draft will need to most likely be reinstated.

Also I am unsure of how allowing gays in them military will cause "utter chaos"

Like I have said, I do not have a problem with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It is not unconstitutional and if this is how the military sees it needs to be run, then so be it.

But just because I believe it to be an ok policy legally does not mean I should make crazy statements trying to put fear into people just because homosexuals are allowed in the military.

Large numbers of people are not going to leave the military because this is overturned. Even the thought of that is laughable and makes me question who and how people were surveyed to even come to a conclusion like that.

I am anti-sin as well. I am also pro-jesus. I will never say homosexuality is ok and not a sin. I however will not use that belief and try to scare people into seeing things my way. That is wrong, and not at all something Jesus would do. It is shameful.

[ToTheLeft]

This is just sad. I'm really ashamed. I'm going to have to stop reading these kinds of posts.

In reference to my post?

No, the ones above yours, haha. I agree with yours.

[LUconn]

Thepostman, I’m curious exactly how the facts were misrepresented?” According to the AP, the CDC has just come out with a study indicating that one in every five homosexual men has HIV/Aids. HIV can lay dormant for an extended period and not show up in tests. With the need for battle field transfusions in combat, this places troops at risk of contracting the virus, needlessly, through a blood transfusion. Even the FDA will not allow men who have s*x with men to give blood. I care more about our troops than I do political correctness. Don’t you?

... and your point? There's a higher percentage of black men with HIV than white men, should we prevent blacks from joining the Armed Forces? Let's just have a straight white Christian Armed forces!

This is all ridiculous, it's mind boggling.

1 in 5 is a lot different than "one group his a higher percentage than the other". However nobody is saying gays can't serve, they just can't tell anybody they're gay. So my point is neither here nor there.

[ToTheLeft]

Thepostman, I’m curious exactly how the facts were misrepresented?” According to the AP, the CDC has just come out with a study indicating that one in every five homosexual men has HIV/Aids. HIV can lay dormant for an extended period and not show up in tests. With the need for battle field transfusions in combat, this places troops at risk of contracting the virus, needlessly, through a blood transfusion. Even the FDA will not allow men who have s*x with men to give blood. I care more about our troops than I do political correctness. Don’t you?

... and your point? There's a higher percentage of black men with HIV than white men, should we prevent blacks from joining the Armed Forces? Let's just have a straight white Christian Armed forces!

This is all ridiculous, it's mind boggling.

1 in 5 is a lot different than "one group his a higher percentage than the other". However nobody is saying gays can't serve, they just can't tell anybody they're gay. So my point is neither here nor there.

I don't know, I'm really so baffled by this that I just don't know what to say.

And I didn't really feel like looking up some stats on this since it doesn't matter.

I'll just avoid this thread...

[adam42381]

The gay/HIV argument doesn't work. The percentage of lesbians who have HIV is extremely small. Should they admit lesbians and not gay males? Ignorance is running rampant around these parts.

[ValuesVoter]

The main things I have a problem with is saying that military members won't reenlist if this is overturned and because of this a draft will need to most likely be reinstated.

Also I am unsure of how allowing gays in them military will cause "utter chaos"

Like I have said, I do not have a problem with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. It is not unconstitutional and if this is how the military sees it needs to be run, then so be it.

But just because I believe it to be an ok policy legally does not mean I should make crazy statements trying to put fear into people just because homosexuals are allowed in the military.

Large numbers of people are not going to leave the military because this is overturned. Even the thought of that is laughable and makes me question who and how people were surveyed to even come to a conclusion like that.

I am anti-sin as well. I am also pro-jesus. I will never say homosexuality is ok and not a sin. I however will not use that belief and try to scare people into seeing things my way. That is wrong, and not at all something Jesus would do. It is shameful.

I posted a link to the survey in my comment above. It was a Military Times Poll that said up to 24% of current service members would not re-enlist or would consider not re-enlisting. Even if a portion of those who said they wouldn't or would consider not re-enlisting actually didn't re-enlist, it'd be a huge loss to our military. Especially considering the change of the law would accommodate so few homosexuals who actually want to serve. The costs of the change are just not worth it.

Though I tend to agree that it's silly to try to scare people into agreement or submission, I can also understand how allowing homosexuals into the military would cause chaos, especially in coordinating sleeping and showering arrangements. I mean, how does that work, exactly? Obviously, men and women are separated in the current set-up for a reason. Additionally, when situations, like the one mentioned by LibertyinTruth, arise, what becomes of the confidence of the heterosexuals who have been fondled, and even those who hadn't been fondled, but who heard about such situations. Nobody wants to be a victim and to put men and women in compromising situations like this subjects them to victimization. This is the type of activity that causes problems with unit cohesion and distracts soldiers from their jobs.

It is in attempting to accommodate the minority and in attempting to integrate them into a largely traditional and conservative environment that will cause, in what in my opinion can rightly be labeled chaos.

[From the class of 09]

TTL I understand where your coming from but the reason you always seem to be in the middle of any argument on this board is that you refuse to see any sides argument other than your own. I understand where you're coming from on this issue for sure, but if you can't see where the 1 in 5 stat would cause some reservations then I don't know what to say.

[ToTheLeft]

TTL I understand where your coming from but the reason you always seem to be in the middle of any argument on this board is that you refuse to see any sides argument other than your own. I understand where you're coming from on this issue for sure, but if you can't see where the 1 in 5 stat would cause some reservations then I don't know what to say.

...whatever. I'll leave. Have a great time guys.

[From the class of 09]

The gay/HIV argument doesn't work. The percentage of lesbians who have HIV is extremely small. Should they admit lesbians and not gay males? Ignorance is running rampant around these parts.

Ok let the lesbos in but unless the 1 in 5 number is wrong (it may be i'm taking this boards word) then that is still an issue.

[From the class of 09]

TTL I understand where your coming from but the reason you always seem to be in the middle of any argument on this board is that you refuse to see any sides argument other than your own. I understand where you're coming from on this issue for sure, but if you can't see where the 1 in 5 stat would cause some reservations then I don't know what to say.

...whatever. I'll leave. Have a great time guys.

Way to prove the point

[ALUmnus]

The gay/HIV argument doesn't work. The percentage of lesbians who have HIV is extremely small. Should they admit lesbians and not gay males? Ignorance is running rampant around these parts.

What ignorance could you be meaning? Just curious.

[ToTheLeft]

TTL I understand where your coming from but the reason you always seem to be in the middle of any argument on this board is that you refuse to see any sides argument other than your own. I understand where you're coming from on this issue for sure, but if you can't see where the 1 in 5 stat would cause some reservations then I don't know what to say.

...whatever. I'll leave. Have a great time guys.

Way to prove the point

Okay, so I'm the one who doesn't see any side but my own? No one else here does that? Really? You really mean that? Honestly? You 100% mean that?

[ALUmnus]

And is anyone else curious where the heck those three suddenly came from? Just seems a little orchestrated to me.

[ToTheLeft]

The gay/HIV argument doesn't work. The percentage of lesbians who have HIV is extremely small. Should they admit lesbians and not gay males? Ignorance is running rampant around these parts.

Ok let the lesbos in but unless the 1 in 5 number is wrong (it may be i'm taking this boards word) then that is still an issue.

Here, I'll "make a point..."

To date, over 230,000 African Americans have died of AIDS - nearly 40% of total deaths - and of the more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States of America today, around half are black.1 And yet, as a racial group, African Americans represent just 12% of the US population. The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588).2

http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm

[From the class of 09]

...whatever. I'll leave. Have a great time guys.

Way to prove the point

Okay, so I'm the one who doesn't see any side but my own? No one else here does that? Really? You really mean that? Honestly? You 100% mean that?

I'm sure we all do at times but you seem to do it 100% of the time. Honestly, I really mean that

Everyone of us gets heated on different issues but whenever (no matter what the topic) I read your post it seems like someone just called your mom fat (you're way emotionally involved in every thread).

[From the class of 09]

To date, over 230,000 African Americans have died of AIDS - nearly 40% of total deaths - and of the more than 1 million people living with HIV in the United States of America today, around half are black.1 And yet, as a racial group, African Americans represent just 12% of the US population. The estimated lifetime risk of becoming infected with HIV is 1 in 16 for black males, and 1 in 30 for black females, a far higher risk than for white males (1 in 104) and white females (1 in 588).2

http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm[/quote]

At this point it then becomes a probabilities game (and where you draw the line) but with the numbers we are talking about there is a significant difference in the 20% vs. 6.25% or over three times as many.

[adam42381]

The gay/HIV argument doesn't work. The percentage of lesbians who have HIV is extremely small. Should they admit lesbians and not gay males? Ignorance is running rampant around these parts.

What ignorance could you be meaning? Just curious.

I was referring to the ignorance of the fact that HIV/AIDS isn't an issue of homosexuality. Lesbians don't get infected in high numbers. Gay males and black males are the demographics with high numbers of infections. Banning homosexual males from the military = banning gay black males from the military. Safe sex and clean needles are the keys to preventing infection, not banning segments of the population from joining the military.

[mosborne]

We must be careful not to miss the point here. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not a mark of identity like race or ethnicity, rather there are a set of behaviors that cause someone to be defined as a homosexual.

The military has always had the ability to regulate what kind of behavior goes on in a unit. If someone is acting unbecomingly, then the military has the right to eject that person from service.

The rejection of the DADT repeal is a positive development because it ensures several things:

1) The Congress is not overstepping its authority in regards to the military.

2) That special recognition is not given to homosexual behavior

Had the bill passed it would likely have been a stepping stone for more devious legislation and/or court orders. So this is definitely a good thing.

[From the class of 09]

Banning homosexual males from the military = banning gay black males from the military

False, the arguement we've been reduced to is to ban gay males equally (not just black gays, while your hypothetical arguement could be interpeted as racist that is not the proposal being made (in our hypo FF thread))

Safe sex and clean needles are the keys to preventing infection, not banning segments of the population from joining the military.

Neither of these are exclusive arguments

[Schfourteenteen]

I’m curious exactly how the facts were misrepresented?” According to the AP, the CDC has just come out with a study indicating that one in every five homosexual men has HIV/Aids. HIV can lay dormant for an extended period and not show up in tests. With the need for battle field transfusions in combat, this places troops at risk of contracting the virus, needlessly, through a blood transfusion. Even the FDA will not allow men who have s*x with men to give blood. I care more about our troops than I do political correctness. Don’t you?

I was referring to the ignorance of the fact that HIV/AIDS isn't an issue of homosexuality. Lesbians don't get infected in high numbers. Gay males and black males are the demographics with high numbers of infections. Banning homosexual males from the military = banning gay black males from the military. Safe sex and clean needles are the keys to preventing infection, not banning segments of the population from joining the military.

It seems to tackle this facet of the argument.

[LUconn]

Any lesbians denied on account of gay males is just less women serving anyway.

[Kolzilla41]

I think part of the discussion here is a generational world view. Some of the resentment going on around us is because certain parties have used Christianity in politics and politics in Christianity. This article http://www.esquire.com/features/best-an ... z0uLRi3JQG reveals some of what I feel about mixing Christianity and politics. I don't go the way of a "Social Gospel" but the world is turned off by the screaming on the street corner. God is still very relevant and looked for by this world but some of the methods need to be revised.

[thepostman]

I think part of the discussion here is a generational world view. Some of the resentment going on around us is because certain parties have used Christianity in politics and politics in Christianity. This article http://www.esquire.com/features/best-an ... z0uLRi3JQG reveals some of what I feel about mixing Christianity and politics. I don't go the way of a "Social Gospel" but the world is turned off by the screaming on the street corner. God is still very relevant and looked for by this world but some of the methods need to be revised.

That was a great article. Thanks so much for posting. I am not sure if I can completely sign off on the entirety of this article, but it was a refreshing read.

Like I have said continually, I will always believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also think reacting to sinners in the way the Liberty Counsel has done in this case is a sin. It is wrong to place fear into people in the name of God.

I do not know why I continue to say something over and over again. It just blows my mind that Christians can disagree with this way of thinking.

[mrmacphisto]

Thepostman, I’m curious exactly how the facts were misrepresented?” According to the AP, the CDC has just come out with a study indicating that one in every five homosexual men has HIV/Aids. HIV can lay dormant for an extended period and not show up in tests. With the need for battle field transfusions in combat, this places troops at risk of contracting the virus, needlessly, through a blood transfusion. Even the FDA will not allow men who have s*x with men to give blood. I care more about our troops than I do political correctness. Don’t you?

What does this have to do with DADT?

[SuperJon]

There are gay people in the military already. They are on the battlefield and giving blood transfusions right now. The chance of them giving someone HIV currently is higher than if DADT was taken away. If it's taken away, the gay people will be known and the medical units can find someone else to transfuse with just to be safe.

If anyone thinks repealing this rule will change the amount of gay people in the military then that person is, in the words of my good friend Alan Garner, a ruh-tard.