The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

WorldWatcher,

The key comment in your post with regards to the MILITARY/QUEER issue in the post is this:

"There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million)."

Hence, the Military, if given a choice, without smokescreened by the Obamarrhoidal Queer PC and thus Military edict, would logically prefer to have the Nation's overwhelmingly larger population of ******* queers NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!


1. The military is already routinely screening on a regular basis and prior to deployement for HIV. People are not allowed to deploy if they test positive.

2. You can't catch queer by coming into contact with a homosexuals blood and having it enter your blood stream.

3. You can catch HIV by coming into contact with a heterosexuals blood and having it enter your blood stream.

4. A heterosexual visiting prostitutes while deployed and becoming infected would probably be a more likely source of battlefield infection.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
Nobody is comparing sexual orientation to race, but comparing discrimination to discrimination. Just because one school of thought, homophobia, is personally supported by you and racism isn't, doesn't make you more right than the racists. (you're both wrong and you both think your views are justified)

There we go again, Since when am I homophobic? If you actually knew anything about me you would already know that my stepson is gay.

I do not believe that this is a wise decision especially during time of war.

I believe it will cause problems that the US Military does not need at this time.

We shall see. But don't go calling me names when you know nothing....

Discrimination is discrimination, this is true, but there is still a wide difference.

I disagree with Ollie on this 100% but do not believe him to be homophobic.
He reminds me so much of another career military man, a man we call Vike that was 25 year Army. Vike now stands for the repeal but didn't before. Give Ollie time.

And I must disagree with your assessment of homophobia. The woman that clutches her purse a little tighter when a black man gets in an elevator may not think herself a racist, but she is. There are degrees of everything, including homophobia and racism.

His continued insistence that allowing gays to serve honestly will cause problems IS a degree of homophobia I'm afraid.
 
No, you're still just making it up. I said nothing about using the "f" word either. Why don't you read my posts and respond to points I am making rather then making up points you want me to have made?

I stated that using the f-word for gay man is disrespectful and not using it isn't being politically correct. Your response was "Yeah it is".

What other conclusion am I to draw from that?

You're going to have to show me that post. Something was misunderstood there. I'm not hung up either way on words like you are and I don't think the word "***" in itself is either offensive or not offensive. Not only do I not remember saying what you said, but it's not something that I would say. You're either thinking of someone else or that's not what I was referring to.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3512589-post325.html
 
I see it has been a busy day on this thread. Some of you have posted some very good replies. Others still insist on posting fantasy. I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style. I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids. His article is accurate. However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.

"The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.

As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.

AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]

In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"

HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context. This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors. It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood. That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.

Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene. Would anyone care to guess why? Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield. A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist. They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.
 
You keep painting this false dilemma. You're trying to make the issue out to be that Congress has enacted a law that requires billboards to go up, or requires all gay service members to make a speech professing their sexuality. That has not happened. Until you can be honest with your "view" there's nothing to argue. You're looking a horse in the face and calling "WOLF!" The glaring failings of your "view" speaks themselves itselves.

You hit the nail on the head. Really, if you don't want to know if someone is gay, don't ******* ask them. I've never just "told" someone out of the blue. If someone asks, I tell them and if they assume I am straight, I will often dissuade them of the notion.

Seriously, if you don't want to know, don't be nosy.
 
With all due respect, yota....

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.

...you couldnt be further from the truth of what most here think or feel. We differ, yes. But the majority care very much for those in harms way, fighting wars, and rely on their brothers and sisters in arms to come home safe and stay safe while they are there. Regardeless of who is next to them shoulder to shoulder.
 
I see it has been a busy day on this thread. Some of you have posted some very good replies. Others still insist on posting fantasy. I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style. I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids. His article is accurate. However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.

"The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.

As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.

AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]

In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"

HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context. This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors. It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood. That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.

Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene. Would anyone care to guess why? Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield. A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist. They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.
Then we must not allow emergency workers to pick up accident victims or gunshot victims.
 
Yota, what do HIV statistics have to do with DADT or its repeal? As pointed out, ANYONE can get HIV. The straight soldier on leave in Africa is at greater risk for contracting the disease than the gay soldier. Also, gays ARE SERVING NOW. What changes when you might KNOW they are gay instead of just suspecting they are?
 
I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............

There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.

You asked for it you got it.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
Family Research Council
 
In general.....how do military marriages do?

Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?
 
In general.....how do military marriages do?

Why does the military care about how long relationships last as long as it does not impact the mission?

*MISSION FIRST* However the Military has services FOR married members FOR support...when their spouses are deployed...But you'd know that If you ever served wouldn't you?

Why do you ask?
 
I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............

There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.

You asked for it you got it.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
Family Research Council
But you don't want them to be able to get married. Sounds strange, huh?
Family Research Council?... no thanks.
 
Last edited:
I really did not want to bring this up, but sometimes..............

There is a proven lifestyle difference between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. And a major part of that difference is the number of and the length of relationships.

You asked for it you got it.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
Family Research Council
But you don't want them to be able to get married. Sounds strange, huh?
Family Research Council ... no thanks.

Depends upon LOCAL LAW per the Ninth, and Tenth...and the States...doesn't it?
 
15th post
Just stating the facts.

More partners, more often.....

You may all draw your own conclusions.

When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.
 
Just stating the facts.

More partners, more often.....

You may all draw your own conclusions.

When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.

Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...

Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)
 
I see it has been a busy day on this thread. Some of you have posted some very good replies. Others still insist on posting fantasy. I've seen some of you try to twist what others have posted in order to at credence to a deviant life style. I see were WorldWatcher posted some relevant information on aids. His article is accurate. However I think that the rest of that story should be posted.

"The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[2] In the early 1980s, doctors in Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco began seeing young men with Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer usually associated with elderly men of Mediterranean ethnicity.

As the knowledge that men who had sex with men were dying of an otherwise rare cancer began to spread throughout the medical communities, the syndrome began to be called by the colloquialism "gay cancer." As medical scientists discovered that the syndrome included other manifestations, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, (PCP), a rare form of fungal pneumonia, its name was changed to "GRID," or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.[3] This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particularly since it seemed that unprotected anal sex was the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

Within the medical community, it quickly became apparent that the disease was not specific to men who have sex with men (as blood transfusion patients, intravenous drug users, heterosexual and bisexual women, and newborn babies became added to the list of afflicted), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) renamed the syndrome AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) in 1982.

AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers and injecting drug users. The main route of transmission for women is through heterosexual sex, and the main risk factor for them is non-protection and the undisclosed risky behaviour of their sexual partners. Experts attribute this to "AIDS fatigue" among younger people who have no memory of the worst phase of the epidemic in the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as "condom fatigue" among those who have grown tired of and disillusioned with the unrelenting safer sex message.[citation needed] This trend is of major concern to public health workers.[citation needed]

In a 2008 study, the Center for Disease Control found that, of the study participants who were men who had sex with men ("MSM"), almost one in five (19%) had HIV and "among those who were infected, nearly half (44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status." The research found that those who are white MSM "represent a greater number of new HIV infections than any other population, followed closely by black MSM — who are one of the most disproportionately affected subgroups in the U.S" and that most new infections among white MSM occurred among those aged 30-39 followed closely by those aged 40-49, while most new infections among black MSM have occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-29).[25][26]"

HIV/AIDS in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would advise clicking on the link so that you can read this article in it full context. This article talks of shared lifestyle risk factors. It tells us anyone can get aids, and for any number of reasons. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that HIV, is spread though direct contact with blood. That one factor is of most interest to those involved in combat.

Blood is listed by civilian first responders as the most dangerous substance on an accident scene. Would anyone care to guess why? Blood is the most common substance on the battlefield. A Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Air Man/ Woman, or Coast Guardsman, shouldn't have to worry about facing more life threatening situations then already exist. They shouldn't have to worry about surviving the horrors of combat, and then dying needlessly.

From what I've seen written here most of you could care less about the lives, or well being of American Service Men, and Women.

You act as though you are the only one here with family and friends on active duty in a combat zone now. What gives you the right to speak for everyone?
Anyone that disagrees with you we always hear from you the BULL SHIT about how we do not care about the lives or well being of American Service Men and Women.
When a needed translator or medic is sent home because they are gay and you support that it IS YOU that does not give a shit about the well being of American Service Men and Women. The military has more than just combat troops.
If you would get off your high horse you would acknowledge that.
 
Just stating the facts.

More partners, more often.....

You may all draw your own conclusions.

When you have to hide your relationships that would sort of run with the territory.
If they could be open and proud with their relationships then it would be different.
Gay folk happen to fall in love with folks of the same sex. Not much one can do about that Ollie.

Never made the claim that they could change. But the fact is that they tend to have more partners, more often. And that isn't because they are in the closet in the military that is overall lifestyle...

Take from the facts what you will. And I know they have the same emotions that straight people have. Remember I have a gay in the family who at one point lived with us with his partner of the moment. (Hated that guy, he was a garbage head and stole a CD player and Cd's from us...)

And young military men do not have as many women as they can find???
 
Back
Top Bottom