George Will Sells Out

[DerailAmnesty.com]

The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.


Assuming this ridiculously overbroad statement is true, why not preclude blacks from military service as well? Their incidence of HIV infection is well above the national average.

Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

The key problem is that the blood of male homosexuals is contaminated with HIV and other diseases that can cause death.


Assuming this ridiculously overbroad statement is true, why not preclude blacks from military service as well? Their incidence of HIV infection is well above the national average.

Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?

I think, but am not sure that the rate of infection between gays is consistently higher than between similarly situated black people, and that it's strongly related to the anal method of sexual relations. So gay men practicing anal sex are far more likely to have/infect than black people practicing sex the uh...procreative way?

Aside from that particular issue, I might not have enlisted if I were going to be forced to cohabitiate with gay soldiers the way the military trains and expects a soldier to act during their tour of duty. I would fight alongside most anybody in a pinch, but the closeness that a soldier must adhere to while in the military and within their units can be extreme. I don't believe that gays are any more or any less a person, or a soldier for that matter, but I don't think I'd do well being forced to live so intertwined with them.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

My understanding of the issue is different (although, admittedly, I haven't looked it up recently, and I'm relying upon something I read at least 6 years ago). But the argument this guy made was not about "closeness" and being personally "intertwined," regarding living arrangements. He was arguing about infection.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Further, wouldn't testing for HIV, of all people entering and remaining in the military, solve this alleged problem?

It would help a little, but not necessarily be an end. You'd have to test soldiers quite often for it to be somewhat effective, and really, the military doesn't have the funds or inclination to do it. They're still battling with soldiers over PTS and agent orange claims. Soldiers could test on friday, and have contact with HIV over the weekend. In addition, military medical is not really the best thing going. They hire doctors who can't get jobs elsewhere, similar to prisons, and if the top is suspect, and they are the training and management for nurses and staff.....
I think the writer is using hyperbole, when fact would be better. The fact is, the liberal agenda is prone to forcing gays on everyone, and the military is the holy grail of their effort. Get the gays in the army and you've forced one of the last bastions of right wing prone leadership to smile when they say "we're tolerant"

By the way; I spent nearly all day at the Sacramento AIDS clinic today. I had a one day gig removing some stuff, and was in and out of the main floor and lower lobby all day. They've got lots of customers throughout the day. Some are just kids. It's heartbreaking to see a mom comforting a teenage son or daughter while they wait for treatment.
But yes, there's also some of the strange looking male prostitutes, twenty-somethings with more piercings than you can count, and homeless with their gear in shopping carts out front. while I was in the restroom, I saw one of those needle collection boxes nearly full at noon.
AIDS is a big problem still. No real cure yet.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

AIDS has become a treatable disease like diabetes; it isn't a death sentence like it was in the 80's. Further, the risk of infection from a gay soldier would largely come from someone engaging in consenting unprotected sex w/ such an individual. Additionally, it is a minority of homosexuals who have been exposed to HIV.

There is little utility or justifiability for forcibly excluding them from military service. A person doesn't like gays in close quarters? Does that mean we should bar them from movie theatres, hospital rooms, college classrooms and gym locker rooms, as well?

Homosexuals are everywhere around us, and this is nothing new. The requirements of fighting for our country don't necessitate their exclusion from the armed services. Not liking them or feeling uncomfortable around them is not a justification for making an exception to the Equal Protection clause of the Federal Constitution.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

AIDS has become a treatable disease like diabetes; it isn't a death sentence like it was in the 80's. Further, the risk of infection from a gay soldier would largely come from someone engaging in consenting unprotected sex w/ such an individual. Additionally, it is a minority of homosexuals who have been exposed to HIV.

There is little utility or justifiability for forcibly excluding them from military service. A person doesn't like gays in close quarters? Does that mean we should bar them from movie theatres, hospital rooms, college classrooms and gym locker rooms, as well?

Homosexuals are everywhere around us, and this is nothing new. The requirements of fighting for our country don't necessitate their exclusion from the armed services. Not liking them or feeling uncomfortable around them is not a justification for making an exception to the Equal Protection clause of the Federal Constitution.

With all due respect, your comparison to movie theaters and schools is not relevant. The military demands cohesion and harmony the likes of which do not even come close to the examples you posted. Personally, I don't think gays should be excluded from service, however I believe they should be segregated in units similar to the way females are from males. The precedent has already been established for that, and the similarities exist.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

With all due respect, your comparison to movie theaters and schools is not relevant. The military demands cohesion and harmony the likes of which do not even come close to the examples you posted. Personally, I don't think gays should be excluded from service, however I believe they should be segregated in units similar to the way females are from males. The precedent has already been established for that, and the similarities exist.

You're right, precedent exists for what you suggest. They used to have black-only units, also. The question is (as per the standards you are fleshing out), does integrating homosexuals with straights present a problem so insurmountable that cohesion and harmony can't exist?

So far, based upon the record, I'd say it doesn't bode well for you. The military doesn't separate the Jews and the Muslims, the Catholics and the Protestants or even enlistees who have had ties or family members associated with the Bloods and the Crips. All these disparate groups have largely managed to function together. Further, there are plenty of gays who have put their time in the Armed Forces and been decorated for meritorious and heroic service (and they weren't performing segregated duty at the time they logged their accomplishments).

And of course, Davi, we have now wandered well off the path taken by the guy who wrote the piece, above, who was arguing that gays shouldn't serve for medical-related reasons.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

You're right, precedent exists for what you suggest. They used to have black-only units, also. The question is (as per the standards you are fleshing out), does integrating homosexuals with straights present a problem so insurmountable that cohesion and harmony can't exist?

So far, based upon the record, I'd say it doesn't bode well for you. The military doesn't separate the Jews and the Muslims, the Catholics and the Protestants or even enlistees who have had ties or family members associated with the Bloods and the Crips. All these disparate groups have largely managed to function together. Further, there are plenty of gays who have put their time in the Armed Forces and been decorated for meritorious and heroic service (and they weren't performing segregated duty at the time they logged their accomplishments).

And of course, Davi, we have now wandered well off the path taken by the guy who wrote the piece, above, who was arguing that gays shouldn't serve for medical-related reasons.

Ha! You wandered from a sexually based theme to one of race and creed. Creed may have some slight credible reason, but race has been ruled out. The precedent I mentioned was male and female soldiers. Here's an excerpt from a Q & A session about the military:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joini.../military6.htm

The Marines have taken a diffent route. The Marine Corps believes that lower-ranking enlisted Marines living together is essential to discipline, unit cohesion, and espirit de corps. Under the Marine Corps program, junior Marines (E-1 to E-3) share a room and a bathroom. Marines in the paygrades of E-4 and E-5 are entitled to a private room.

They don't require male and female marines to share a room and bunk together as a matter of course.

[Kathy63]

In many areas of life, not in the military, gays end up segregated. The military will end up segregated as well. But, that's not where the damage will occur with gays openly serving.

Socially, gays end up segregated in bars and yes, even in public gyms. Why are there gay bars? Why are there gay hotels and resorts? Partly it's a result of self segregation, partly it's a result of behavior that others simply do not want to put up with.

The worst of the damage though won't be through the acts or behavior of men and women who are homosexual and simply want to live and love on their own. The worst of the damage will come from the gay activists to whom permission to serve openly won't be nearly enough to meet their demands.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

Ha! You wandered from a sexually based theme to one of race and creed. Creed may have some slight credible reason, but race has been ruled out. The precedent I mentioned was male and female soldiers. Here's an excerpt from a Q & A session about the military:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/joini.../military6.htm



They don't require male and female marines to share a room and bunk together as a matter of course.

OK, I'll bite. What would be the compelling justification for your separate-but-equal scheme? Tell me why homosexuals and heterosexuals can't sleep in the same barracks and use the same shower facilities. How is this different than cohabitation with members of races one doesn't like or members of religious groups one detests?