DONT ASK DONT TELL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Let me clarify my question, I am not concerned with what the military will do, I want to know how the politics will play out in your opinions. Lets not turn this into a debate on whether or not gays should be in the military or blood banks or discuss the reliving of past sexual assualts you may have been on the receiving end of. This type of debate goes no where, because for every argument you make against gays, you can make an argument for them being in the military, then it breaks down to personal beliefs, feelings and for some former service members fond fantasys LOL.

This was not meant to be a discussion on HIV.

I am wondering why testing positive for HIV should not be grounds for discharge? I have no problem with that.

Here a link to CDC data:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ivaidsexposure

In men:

Looks like in 2008, the heterosexual vs homosexual split was 20% vs 80%

and the accumulated cases up to 2008 had a split of 12% vs 88%


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In men and women:

Looks like 39% vs 61% in 2008 and 27% vs 73% in accumulated cases up to 2008.

The 50/50 split most people talk about is a worldwide number. The US is trending that way, but isn't there yet.

So JG is not completely illogical. Also, as mentioned above, the late 80's and early 90's were a time of absolute AIDS hysteria.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I the Army, we did train in sticking each other with needles during combat lifesaver training. And, since everybody has their blood type on their dog tags, we did train for the possibility of doing a battlefield blood transfusion...warm body to warm body. So, HIV is a concern. I only remember getting tested once (and then we were often encouraged to donate during civilian blood drives, and I think they tested that too). When a soldier deploys to a combat zone, he or she would be tested...so the likelyhood of getting HIV is low Now...but when we were first discovering HIV in the 80's, there wasn't testing, and alot of people did get HIV from transfusions.

I anticipate that the report, due to come out at the end of this year, will say get rid of DADT...but it will recommend that the military do more frequent HIV testing, since they do have their own mini blood supply....and statistically it would be more at risk. Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Your 2008 stats are outdated...
and hopefully, at least...we, as a society, have learned a lot about HIV over the years...
and now know just how wrong some of those concerns were(are).

I say live and let live.
I'm not in the military serving our country and I'm not going to say one bad thing about anyone who is be they gay, straight or whatever.
I'm pretty sure they get tested yearly for HIV and things of that nature...
But again, I'm not in the military so I don't know for certain.

topnotch, I think you have to look at the context of which this post was made before declaring it ignorant. Freddie Mercury died in 1991 and the AIDS scare was very strong during the 80's and early 90's. Many people were under the impression that simply touching someone with AIDS or HIV would automatically give that disease to you because it wasn't understood as well as it is now. That is one of the reasons why Princess Diana was so well respected. She was willing to hold children who had the disease to show that it wasn't an automatic death sentence.

As for serving on a ship, you must also realize that there aren't huge supplies of blood on hand for transfusions like there are in metropolitan areas that have blood banks. The military is pretty good at improvising when are where needed and it simply makes sense that on a ship with limited blood supplies that a record of the crew member's blood types be kept just in case a donor is needed. And in that instance, I'd want to know if I can depend on my shipmates and the medical staff not to give me a blood borne disease if I needed a transfusion. Originally Posted by nsafun05

As I said, my post was not meant to offend...
The definition of ignorant is "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general".
and The situation(thoughts on HIV, and gays in the military) then, itself, was...in fact, ignorant.

I NEVER said beat up ( you did ). The bunks on a navy ship are very close to one another. In this case P ( a hairy chested, macho Italian guy) had a rack within 4 inches of H (a rather weird guy). One night P woke up to find someone playing with his package without his permission. He grabbed the hand and found that it belonged to H. P immediately rolled out of his rack, pulled H out of his rack, and began to punch/kick him. P paused long enough to pull on his boots and wrap a belt around his fist. He then proceeded to lay into H again. P had to be pulled off of H. Here is the dumb part. H was processed for discharge but was allowed to maintain the same rack that he made the assault from. P took to sleeping in his office with a blanket in a chair. He lost weight and had dark circles under his eyes. It took three weeks for H to be discharged. So why did H's rights supersede P's rights?
So tell me O Great Debater, what would you have done?

How will the politics play out?

Well, in a strange twist, the Log Cabin Republicans have stolen the thunder from the Democrats. If the ruling stands, the answer to the questioon "Who eliminated DADT?" will be....Republicans!?!?

The Gay Rights lobby has been clamoring in recent years for candidates to produce more than talk. The Holy Grail has always been to get rid of DADT. Its symbolic, and will have very little impact on most gays, or gay rights in general...but its been the marquee issue. Congress and the president finally decided the political reward was worth the risk, and they initiated the process to go for the big one, and make DADT history...

...and along comes a 6 year old court case filed by Republicans to muck it up.

This will really muddy the waters, allow some Republicans to engage in revisionist history, and dilute DADT's value as a wedge issue in future elections.

In short, DADT will end with a wimper. It won't really affect the military, and it has lost its impact as a symbolic issue.

Forget it I dont really care anymore, I am too tired from all the HIV and Galt short stories.

For top-notch; won't you agree that an assault is an assault irregardless of the perpetrator and victim.

I recall about 15 years ago in KCMO two men got onto an elevator that had to make a long trip to an upper floor. One man grabbed the other man inappropriately. When the elevator arrived the gay man was badly hurt and on the floor. He never denied grabbing the other man but felt that his rights were violated by the beating. The gay community in KCMO wanted the one man charged with a federal hate crime. I played it out on the radio that what if the beater was a strong, athletic woman with a black belt. Would she be charged if she kicked the crap out of some guy if he reached up under her dress for a feel? *silence*

I say live and let live.
I'm not in the military serving our country and I'm not going to say one bad thing about anyone who is be they gay, straight or whatever.
I'm pretty sure they get tested yearly for HIV and things of that nature...
But again, I'm not in the military so I don't know for certain. Originally Posted by Allie_Kat

Allie, I really do enjoy how non-confrontational you are most of the time

Galt I assume the ship's captain processed or approved the discharge and would have been the person to allow the sleeping locations. If it had been me I would have tried to segregate H from the crew as much as possible until the discharge went through.

No debate just someone made a funny decision and it is now just history.

This issue just needs to go away and die quietly.

When I served in the Navy, there were fellow Deck Apes who everyone knew/assumed were gay. Nobody seemed to give a crap. They were good at their job and good sailors.

Any man or woman who wants to wear our country's uniform and protect us should be allowed to serve. If they can't do their job and washout, then so be it, but they should be judged on their abilities, dedication, and loyalty, not what happens to excite them behind closed doors.

For top-notch; won't you agree that an assault is an assault irregardless of the perpetrator and victim.

I recall about 15 years ago in KCMO two men got onto an elevator that had to make a long trip to an upper floor. One man grabbed the other man inappropriately. When the elevator arrived the gay man was badly hurt and on the floor. He never denied grabbing the other man but felt that his rights were violated by the beating. The gay community in KCMO wanted the one man charged with a federal hate crime. I played it out on the radio that what if the beater was a strong, athletic woman with a black belt. Would she be charged if she kicked the crap out of some guy if he reached up under her dress for a feel? *silence* Originally Posted by john_galt

I completely agree an assault is an assault...Never suggested I didn't

Galt were you in KCMO 15 years ago? Naval station or were you already retired and going to school then?

Are you homophobic?