Like I suggested, this isn't my original reference. Granted, it's still the CDC, but you had to navigate away from the original summary page and get into the details to find this. Your "feined ignorance" comment is still full of crap, and your pissing matches are boring me...
You point to a statement from the CDC and it's fine. I point to a statement from the CDC and I'm starting a pissing match. Not to mention that I am referred to as being "completely full of freshly packed crap" for citing to the document which your reference summarized. I guess I'm the bad guy for referring to the same source and taking the time to actually skim the source instead of the summary.
Of course, you do realize that a group making up only 5-7% of the total population also makes up 24% of all new HBV infections. The incident rate is much higher in the homosexual community, so your position is nonsense.
Based on the fact that 39% of new HBV cases come from heterosexual intercourse, you have a larger number of HBV cases coming from heterosexuals than homosexuals. Higher incident rate or not, you have a larger chance of your next HBV infection in the military coming from a heterosexual (and more overall HBV infections being in heterosexuals). Thus, we better make sure that heterosexuals are properly screened.
I understand that a homosexual has a higher chance of contracting HBV. However, there are far fewer of them, and more HBV transmissions occur in heterosexuals. You're going to have more heterosexuals with HBV, and their transmission numbers are higher. If you're truly concerned about the health of the military members, then you recognize that heterosexuals pose a larger threat in regard to HBV due to their higher transmission numbers and their much larger percentage of the population.
There you go. You got me. Of course, the "comfort level" argument wasn't based on feelings, emotions or the silly concepts of superficial differences that "you people" like to spin. Throw someone into close quarters who may find his comrades sexually appealing. Throw someone into close quarters who has an increased risk of contracting deadly communicable diseases because of their extracurricular activities. Throw someone into close quarters who may have one of those diseases. Throw a deviant like Eric Massa into close quarters who fondles subordinate officers at "tickle parties". We're not talking "comfort levels" as they relate to feelings and emotions; we're talking about disruptive forces and increased risk scenarios that shouldn't be introduced in the military.
You used the word "uncomfortable," which is a reference as to how they would feel. You even went as far as to chastise me for even mentioning "comfort levels," as if you had never made the argument. A heterosexual feeling "uncomfortable" has nothing to do with the likelihood that a homosexual will fondle someone or spread a disease. Stating that someone would be "uncomfortable" is referring directly to their feelings; it's not a reference to any risk of a disruptive homosexual force.
As far as these disruptive forces wreaking havoc, homosexuals have already been introduced into the military. I have not heard of an epidemic of Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS or any other disease. I have not heard of frequent incidents of homosexual rape or molestation. You refer to Eric Massa, which is one incident. You also fail to refer to numerous instances involving racists, sexists and heterosexuals. If a handful of instances over several years is enough for you to warrant banning an entire group of people, then I guess we need to ban racists, sexists and even heterosexuals for their sporadic instances of misconduct.
But don't take my word for it; take the word of the posters who have served with homosexuals. Take the word of other countries who have homosexuals serving, some of which allow open homosexuality; they haven't seen disease outbreaks or mass disruption. You've referred to Eric Massa as if that situation is an every day occurrence, or as if it is an occurrence that has decimated our military's ability to function. There are studies and individuals' testimonies on this very forum that refute your exaggerated claims of instant spread of disease and disruptive homosexual debauchery on a large scale.
You've characterized "a particular group of people" by their behavior.
I haven't grouped or characterized them; our government has grouped them by enacting the DADT policy. They opened the door to classify them as a group of people by enacting laws that affect them as a group. My only argument is that the denial of a right or privilege to an entire group requires a legitimate reason. Your "disruptive forces" argument has not proven true in the U.S. military, and it has not proven true in other countries. Your medical argument appears to be a double standard, because you do not advocate that anything be done differently with heterosexuals when it is shown that they actually pose a larger risk for some diseases such as HBV. Maybe I'm being absurdly unreasonable, but I haven't seen a legitimate reason for singling out homosexuals yet.
There is no right to vote, as the Constitution does not explicitly protect or deny such rights. None of us have a right to join the military. That pretty much sums it up.
Please tell me you're not serious about the non-existence of a right to vote? The 26th Amendment states:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Or maybe Amendment 15, which states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Or maybe Amendment 19, which states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
I'm not sure how you could state that there is no right to vote when the Constitution explicitly uses the phrase "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" repeatedly. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that no rights are acknowledged by the Constitution at all. You might want to read Amendments 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26. All of these Amendments explicitly refer to rights of individuals. Of those that don't use the word "right," there are many that still imply that a right exists by stating that the government can not infringe upon certain actions/abilities, such as Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 13.
Regardless, you'll note that I also used the word privilege in my response. Afterall, I never claimed that joining the military was a right; I merely stated that you can not deny a particular group of people a right
or a privilege without legitimate reasons. Being able to drive, for instance, is a privilege. Would it be proper for the majority to pass a law that states that Indians can't drive?
Finally, if we continue to let "you people" play your games, we'll have to extend anti-discrimination policies from race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, and sometimes disability to include race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, favorite sexual positions, marital status, number of sexual partners, national origin, booger picking ability, age, sometimes disability, occasionally illness, favorite sport, shoe size, breast size, ass size, eye color, appearance, belt size, baldness and <fill-in-the-blank>. Disgusting...
If you want to ban people from the military because their favorite sport is curling, then yes, "us people" are going to call "you people" out on the absurdity of such a baseless rule.
338 Replies
67137 Views