Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[GarMan]

The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so phuk them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to. Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance. 

How in the hell do you stretch to such ridiculous and unreasonble conclusions?  It's incredible.  I also love the "human right" angle.  Wow, Hillary!  Now, military service is a "human right"...  And, I thought that I was just entitled to that free healthcare. 

I really don't need to defend myself as it relates to your pathetic accusation.  I knew that if I took this angle, this was going to occur by the gay and gay-friendlies in here.  You discriminate and challenge religious values quite frequently, yet you probably don't consider yourself a bigot or someone who hates religion.  And, I don't think anyone has ever called you a bigot over your views.  But, you sure are quick to sling the term around at others... 
 

So, tell me again...  If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community?  Wait...  WAIT...  I got it.  Mother Nature is a bigot!

As for the rest of your post...
Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?
Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.
Your stupid argument, not mine.

This is where you and others took this discussion.  I merely answered or countered your points, and this is where we drifted.  And, yes...  You brought up gay marriage as if it would have an affect on monogamy. 

Read the fact sheet I linked to.
<snip>
Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?

Of course not, but there are additional attributes that your simple pie chart doesn't disclose.  I know you seem to hate it when I say it, but BEHAVIOR is probably the most significant attribute resulting in the increased infection rates among homosexuals.  Cry foul all you want.  You posted the pie chart illustrating that. 

[Tiger Wench]

Here's another way to look at it:

Slightly more than 1M people of the 300+ million people in the US have HIV/AIDS.

Gay men with HIV/AIDS account for nearly 532,000 of that 1M.  That equals out to .17% of the total population.

There are 1,454,515 active duty military personnel (as of February 2009).

Per the 2000 census, there are 36,000 gay people (men and women) in the military.  Per the Census, approximately 11,000 of those gay military people are women, reducing the potental pool of HIV/AIDS people to 25,000.  If you apply the HIV numbers in general population to the military, that means that of 1,454,515 active duty military personnel, 42.5 of them have HIV/AIDS.  That is assuming that only gay men will get HIV/AIDS, and that these 42.5 gay men managed to evade the almost continual medical monitoring of military personnel, which includes HIV testing.

So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier.  (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...)

Hepatitis B is estimated to be 50 to 100 times more infectious than HIV. High-risk groups are injecting drug users, and people who have unprotected sex with multiple sex partners.  Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation. In the United States, an estimated 1.2M people are living with chronic Hepatitis B and 3.2 M are living with chronic Hepatitis C.  Sixty thousand new cases every year.  Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.

Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island.

[Saniflush]

Here's another way to look at it:

Slightly more than 1M people of the 300+ million people in the US have HIV/AIDS.

Gay men with HIV/AIDS account for nearly 532,000 of that 1M.  That equals out to .17% of the total population.

There are 1,454,515 active duty military personnel (as of February 2009).

Per the 2000 census, there are 36,000 gay people (men and women) in the military.  Per the Census, approximately 11,000 of those gay military people are women, reducing the potental pool of HIV/AIDS people to 25,000.  If you apply the HIV numbers in general population to the military, that means that of 1,454,515 active duty military personnel, 42.5 of them have HIV/AIDS.  That is assuming that only gay men will get HIV/AIDS, and that these 42.5 gay men managed to evade the almost continual medical monitoring of military personnel, which includes HIV testing.

So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier.  (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...)

Hepatitis B is estimated to be 50 to 100 times more infectious than HIV. High-risk groups are injecting drug users, and people who have unprotected sex with multiple sex partners.  Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation. In the United States, an estimated 1.2M people are living with chronic Hepatitis B and 3.2 M are living with chronic Hepatitis C.  Sixty thousand new cases every year.  Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.

Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island Camp Lejeune.

[CCTAU]

See. If there are no gays int he military, I won't ever be tempted to have sex with one of them. Therefore my chances of catching any of those diseases form a gay soldier are reduced to zero. I'm good with math too.

I do know that there is at least one infantry soldier who says to keep it like it is. He does not want to know if the guy next to him in a trench is gay. He seems to think this is the prevalent opinion in the infantry.

[Saniflush]

I would contend that no fully functional infantry unit has anyone that is homosexual that is not known by the other members in his squad/platoon.

[GarMan]

Here's another way to look at it:

<number crunchin'>

So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier.  (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...) 

I definitely appreciate where you're attempting to go with this, but my original point wasn't based solely on HIV or AIDS...  As I suggested, that's just one of many risks.  Also, you're estimates are limited to what we understand the current stats to be.  If DADT were to be lifted, wouldn't we expect these numbers to grow?  Just sayin'... 

Hepatitis B ... 
... Hepatitis C. 
...
Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.

Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island. 

And, I completely agree, but let's consider some other facts from the CDC... 

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Despite the availability of safe and effective vaccines, many MSM have not been adequately vaccinated against viral hepatitis. Approximately 15%–25% of all new Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States are among MSM. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccination for MSM. Because of higher rates of infection among this population, CDC also recommends testing MSM for chronic HBV infection.

http://www.cdc.gov/Hepatitis/Populations/MSM.htm

So, to summarize...
- Homosexual males account for 5-7% of the population
- Homosexual males account for over 50% of all new HIV infections
- Homosexual males account for more that 68% of all known HIV infections
- Homosexual males account for 15-25% of all new Hepatitis B infections
...
I'm sure that I can play on the CDC website and get more, but aren't we starting to see the trend here?  Such a small percentage of the total population has incredibly high incident rates for some very nasty communicable diseases.  Of all the things that that the military needs to worry about, this really doesn't need to be at the top of their list. 

[Kaos]

Forget statistical realities.  We should worry about their feelings and self-esteem. 

Ignore hard truths. Instead rely on half-baked and highly prejudicial "surveys" and white papers.

The utopian (and communist) standards of political correctness and equality of outcome must triumph over productivity, efficiency and even security.

[Vandy Vol]

If homosexuals account for over 50% of new HIV/AIDS cases, and 68% of the total number of HIV/AIDS cases, then that means that slightly less than 50% of new HIV/AIDS cases are not from homosexuals, and 32% of the total number of HIV/AIDS cases are not from homosexuals.

Neither of those percentages are a majority, but they're also not percentages to simply overlook.  Even if the military bans homosexuals, there are still a large number of heterosexuals who have HIV/AIDS that must be somehow screened by the military.  As PCT and TW have pointed out, the military already does screening for HIV/AIDS, as well as other diseases and viruses which are detectable by blood tests.  Despite the fact that homosexuals have a statistically higher chance of contracting (or already having) HIV/AIDS, there is already a system in place to screen infected individuals, homosexual or heterosexual.

[GarMan]

Despite the fact that homosexuals have a statistically higher chance of contracting (or already having) HIV/AIDS, there is already a system in place to screen infected individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. 

That's like saying, because we already have health facilities, hospitals and clinics in most communities across the United States, why not make healthcare free (via some Robin Hood steal-from-the-rich to benefit the underachievers)? 

[Vandy Vol]

That's like saying, because we already have health facilities, hospitals and clinics in most communities across the United States, why not make healthcare free (via some Robin Hood steal-from-the-rich to benefit the underachievers)? 

The military will still be funded; no one's altering the cost of or the funding for entrance health exams.

[GarMan]

The military will still be funded; no one's altering the cost of or the funding for entrance health exams.  

The entrance health exam is just one area.  Would annual examinations be enough?  If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel?  What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues?  If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to?  And so on...  As I said at the start of this, the military is not a social organization.  Forcing this on them is unreasonable at best. 

[Saniflush]

The entrance health exam is just one area.  Would annual examinations be enough?  If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel?  What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues?  If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to?  And so on...

None, if you are really lucky.

[Vandy Vol]

Would annual examinations be enough? If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel?

I don't know if the exams are currently annual or not, but whatever the frequency is, I'm sure it's based upon some medically accepted (or possibly even just a militarily accepted) standard.  HIV/AIDS and other diseases/viruses are going to have the same incubation periods in homosexuals as they would in heterosexuals.  If the current frequency of the examinations is sufficient to effectively identify and filter those infected individuals, then I don't see why the frequency would need to be changed.

What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues?  If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to?

Assuming that the annual examinations are sufficient enough to effectively screen people who have those medical issues, then there won't be an increase in medical issues and required healthcare.  If the annual examinations are not sufficient enough to effectively screen diseased and infected individuals, then we already have a problem with unnecessary medical expenses being paid, and that current problem would need to be fixed even if the introduction of homosexuals never occurs.

[GarMan]

I don't know if the exams are currently annual or not, but whatever the frequency is, I'm sure it's based upon some medically accepted (or possibly even just a militarily accepted) standard.  HIV/AIDS and other diseases/viruses are going to have the same incubation periods in homosexuals as they would in heterosexuals.  If the current frequency of the examinations is sufficient to effectively identify and filter those infected individuals, then I don't see why the frequency would need to be changed.

It was only a suggestion as the infection rates in the homosexual community is accelerated compared to the heterosexual community.  Just something to consider... 

Assuming that the annual examinations are sufficient enough to effectively screen people who have those medical issues, then there won't be an increase in medical issues and required healthcare.  If the annual examinations are not sufficient enough to effectively screen diseased and infected individuals, then we already have a problem with unnecessary medical expenses being paid, and that current problem would need to be fixed even if the introduction of homosexuals never occurs.

Your assumption is based on the standard medical practices for a predominantly hetersexual military.  For homosexuals, the CDC recommends outright vaccination for Hepatitis.  That's a fairly significant recommendation suggesting that health concerns for homosexuals are greater than that of heterosexuals.  That's all I'm saying.  Now, who would you have pay for it?  Do you force vaccinations on them?  And, if you don't, do you pay for their medical care if they contract one of these diseases while in service? 

[Vandy Vol]

It was only a suggestion as the infection rates in the homosexual community is accelerated compared to the heterosexual community.  Just something to consider...

The infection rates are higher, there is no doubt about that.  Nonetheless, the incubation period is the same in every person regardless of sexual preference.  If they have deemed that an annual inspection is sufficient to detect HIV/AIDS, then it's sufficient for everyone.  And while homosexuals may make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, it's still just as feasible for a heterosexual to contract HIV/AIDS sometime between annual screenings.  Thus, if you view the annual screening as insufficient for homosexuals, then it's just as insufficient for heterosexuals.

Your assumption is based on the standard medical practices for a predominantly hetersexual military.  For homosexuals, the CDC recommends outright vaccination for Hepatitis.  That's a fairly significant recommendation suggesting that health concerns for homosexuals are greater than that of heterosexuals.  That's all I'm saying.  Now, who would you have pay for it?  Do you force vaccinations on them?  And, if you don't, do you pay for their medical care if they contract one of these diseases while in service?  

The current status quo would still apply to those examples that you mentioned.  For instance, because homosexuals are a minority in relation to the entire population, the military would still be predominantly heterosexual.  Additionally, the Air Force already requires Hepatitis vaccinations, and all branches require Hepatitis vaccinations when deploying to most areas, as well as for those members who are "high risk occupational groups."

[AUChizad]

The infection rates are higher, there is no doubt about that.  Nonetheless, the incubation period is the same in every person regardless of sexual preference.  If they have deemed that an annual inspection is sufficient to detect HIV/AIDS, then it's sufficient for everyone.  And while homosexuals may make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, it's still just as feasible for a heterosexual to contract HIV/AIDS sometime between annual screenings.  Thus, if you view the annual screening as insufficient for homosexuals, then it's just as insufficient for heterosexuals.

The current status quo would still apply to those examples that you mentioned.  For instance, because homosexuals are a minority in relation to the entire population, the military would still be predominantly heterosexual.  Additionally, the Air Force already requires Hepatitis vaccinations, and all branches require Hepatitis vaccinations when deploying to most areas, as well as for those members who are "high risk occupational groups."

No, no, no, no, Brad.

You don't get it.

Once they allow the homosexuals that they're already allowing to serve admit to being gay without being discharged, the military automatically becomes this.

[CCTAU]

  As I said at the start of this, the military is not a social organization.  Forcing this on them is unreasonable at best. 

This is the only thing that matters. Whenever open-minded people want to get everyone to agree with them, they look for ways to force the issue.

The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.

All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.

There is no reason to change DADT.

[Tiger Wench]

This is the only thing that matters. Whenever open-minded people want to get everyone to agree with them, they look for ways to force the issue.

The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.

All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.

There is no reason to change DADT.

So integration of black men and women into the military was just social experimentation too?  And a bad idea?

[Vandy Vol]

All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.

There is no reason to change DADT.

GarMan's initial contention was concerning social experimentation.  He has recently shifted to the medical aspect of the discussion.  Of course, this isn't to say that the social experimentation aspect is no longer an argument of his; I'm sure that it is.

Nonetheless, my point is that if the medical issues of homosexuals are legitimate concerns, and if one's stance is that these concerns can not be addressed by the current system for screening recruits for medical problems, then shouldn't it be argued that DADT should be repealed?  If you're unaware that someone is homosexual, then you're unaware of their statistical probability to have HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other number of diseases/viruses that have been mentioned thus far.  The medical discussion that was brought up seems to favor an argument for repealing DADT and/or banning homosexuals from the military; it doesn't really support the argument that DADT should remain.

The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.

If the military is not a social organization, then they're not concerned with the level of comfort that males have or don't have with other members of their unit.  There are racist people in the military.  Regardless, you don't see the federal government conducting surveys to determine if every guy is comfortable sitting in a foxhole with a Korean.

[Kaos]

So integration of black men and women into the military was just social experimentation too?  And a bad idea?

That's an entirely different discussion.  You can pull it all the way back to integration of the schools.  

Some would argue that the decline of American education began at that point.