The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[Vast LWC]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

As a vet myself, I seriously feel that your oldest son probably has an opinion of the situation that is colored by his worldview and upbringing.

This is not a criticism of your son, just a statement that people often see what they expect to see in any given situation, based on their own personal experience.

Therefore, when he's hanging out with his buddies, who probably are of similar upbringing and share a similar worldview, and this is discussed, after a few drinks, this is the opinion that is probably expressed among them.

There is a good probability, therefore, that the personal experience of your son does not necessarily reflect the general opinion of the entire military.
Just a thought.

 

[The T]

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???

As a pejorative in the Sense that YOU wish to LUMP all in the same boat?

All military men act as you seem to want to portray here?

*HINT*

They don't...

 

[RachelMadcow]

Democrats have always been pro-pervert

 

[Gadawg73]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

As a vet myself, I seriously feel that your oldest son probably has an opinion of the situation that is colored by his worldview and upbringing.

This is not a criticism of your son, just a statement that people often see what they expect to see in any given situation, based on their own personal experience.

Therefore, when he's hanging out with his buddies, who probably are of similar upbringing and share a similar worldview, and this is discussed, after a few drinks, this is the opinion that is probably expressed among them.

There is a good probability, therefore, that the personal experience of your son does not necessarily reflect the general opinion of the entire military.
Just a thought.

That is my take also. He has a fine son that respects his Dad and he should. I am sure he thinks for himself also but the respect for father carries the day.
Not unusual at all.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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???

Always have, one nighters, same as anyone else, military or not. But the article talks about short term relationships. So I suppose the one nighters are included. I could be wrong.

 

[gekaap]

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

And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation. I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion. But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.

 

[gekaap]

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?

That's a very good point. In the military, infidelity and promiscuity are so incredibly rampant, and occur on such a larger scale in comparison to civilian life, that all statistics on civilian relationships and sex practices is completely irrelevant.

 

[gekaap]

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.

Shall we look at the "lifestyle" differences of blacks vs whites? Oh yeah, you don't like to compare racial discrimination to orientation discrimination. It doesn't fit well with your agenda, so you ignore that evidence that is inconvenient to you.

 

[gekaap]

As a pejorative in the Sense that YOU wish to LUMP all in the same boat?

All military men act as you seem to want to portray here?

*HINT*

They don't...

How is that any different, or less acceptable, then Ollie or yota doing the exact same thing in regards to gay people? Especially when their entire arguments for gay people are based specifically on their prejudices against gay men only?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Im concerned about the missions troops are sent on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation. I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion. But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.

Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?

Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.


>>>>

 

[gautama]

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

And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation. I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion. But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter.

GayCrap,

The last paragraph in this post is debunked:

The last paragraph:

"And after this distraction with pointless data, you CONTINUE to provide any data that indicates the rates of HIV in MILITARY PERSONNEL based on their sexual orientation. I was giving you credit before as having an honest difference of opinion. But now I see that you are simply being intentionally dishonest about the matter."

This aforementioned paragraph is debunked by my response to WorldWatcher using his FACTUAL DATA from the reliable source (P30 of this thread):

"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)." .........THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.

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 with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!

 

[gekaap]

Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?

Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.

It is not my responsibility to provide for evidence for what someone else wants to claim. They are the ones making the arguments, they are the ones with the responsibility to support those arguments with data.

Gathering such information is not so impossible as you might think, also. Drug use is illegal, yet data is able to be collected regarding how wide spread drug usage is among the public, as well as studies done that measure the long term effects of usage. The same could be done in the military, by way of anonymous surveys, etc. Also, many other countries have policies that allow openly gay people to serve in the military. Data from these militaries could be gathered and used to offer insight. All in all, it's a very fair question, and it's a very fair criticism to point out that their entire arguments are devoid of any meaningful or relevant data, and based entirely on prejudice and speculation.

 

[gautama]

Just wondering, how is someone supposed to provide HIV rates among military personnel by sexual orientation when DADT hasn't even been repealed yet?

Just doesn't seem like a fair question to me as the data would be meaningless.

It is not my responsibility to provide for evidence for what someone else wants to claim. They are the ones making the arguments, they are the ones with the responsibility to support those arguments with data.

Gathering such information is not so impossible as you might think, also. Drug use is illegal, yet data is able to be collected regarding how wide spread drug usage is among the public, as well as studies done that measure the long term effects of usage. The same could be done in the military, by way of anonymous surveys, etc. Also, many other countries have policies that allow openly gay people to serve in the military. Data from these militaries could be gathered and used to offer insight. All in all, it's a very fair question, and it's a very fair criticism to point out that their entire arguments are devoid of any meaningful or relevant data, and based entirely on prejudice and speculation.

GayCRAP,

My post preceding your last post debunks your bullshit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"There are approximately 0.5-0.6% of the North American population (primarily male homosexuals) with HIV (~1.5 Million)." .........THUS, THE HIV POPULATION, PROPORTIONALLY, ESTABLISHES THE QUEERS AS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE AIDS.

Yet you dishonestly snip out the rest of the quote showing a 22.5 million population where HIV has predominantly infected a heterosexual population. Thus debunking you statement that it is most likely to be homosexuals that have AIDS.

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 with HIV NOT bleed on them in the event of wounds and infect them ....... which is a salient factor in time of war !!!

Those who carry HIV (homosexual & heterosexual) are not allowed to deploy so wouldn't be a factor during a War.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

I do agree with Ollie and many that this issue is different than the discrimination against blacks. I know as I grew up in that and saw that up front. I was living in North Carolina and started the 1st grade in 1960. No blacks in my class as we were still segregated, not legally but they knew how to get around it. And the demostrations of blacks and the police brutality was all there. Watching locals cheer on abuse was something a 6 year old should not see. That spread to Tennessee where we moved in 1965. A completely integrated society but the ingrained social segregation was there. No black had a professional job at the University where I lived.
My father worked for the College Entrance Examination Board in Sewanee TN then. He and a few other men would go to high schools in northern Alabama, Georgia and TN and attempt to allow blacks to take the SAT. Local school boards, principals and mobs of white men would not allow it. Threats of death were made. ****** was the word of choice. I saw this until we moved to Georgia in 1968. That high school was integrated but no black came from a family with a professional job anywhere. Blacks were a step behind socially. I was taught to respect blacks but I was a minority. "Boy" was the common label most all white males at my high school called all black males to their face. A few blacks played sports and my teammates and myself, except a few, treated them as equals from the start.
Seeing what I saw being raised in the South and being raised by a man that was in the military and saw how integration and the respect for the black man was fair and just modeled my opinion on gay folks. My father, the Marine Captain, 2nd Marines, Saipan, Guam and Okinawa changed and accepted gays late in his life. He favored the repeal as he was a Goldwater Republican for 50 years. Dad died last Memorial Day at age 88. Dad believed in equality for all. He hated discrimination and said it spread if we allowedit anywhere. No one should be discriminated against be they gay, white, black or whatever.

 

[grunt11b]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.

 

[Gadawg73]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.

Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
None of that is relevant in any of this.
You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
He IS MILITARY.
It is "precedent", not president.

 

[grunt11b]

I had a conversation with my oldest son yesterday. He is career military. He just finished his fourth sensitivity training class about gays serving openly in the military. The troops can't comment on this issue or make disparaging remarks about the CinC. They've been advised that this is the way it will be; live with it.

In all of the classes they've been given one thing has been left out. The danger of HIV infection through direct contact with blood. Blood is the biggest bio-hazard on any accident scene. Civilians will say put on surgical gloves. A soldier would say that when you're wearing your buddies brains all over your face that wont do any good.

As a soldier I could count on my buddies doing everything in their power to bring me or my body back home. My buddies could count on the same thing from me. An openly gay soldier on the battlefield will lay where they fall. This is a very real degradation of military core values. Yet the troops feel that touching the openly gay soldiers blood would expose them to the very really threat of AIDS. That is a death sentence that will be resisted.

Morale is already being affected in a very negative way. The troops feel like they're being kicked in the stomach, and that they're being put into a life threatening situation. Once again people who've never served a second in uniform are making life threatening decisions that will carry dire consequences for the young men and women that this country sends into harms way. I think that congress, and the president need sensitivity training.

I blame secretary gates for this. He should have manned up and told congress that they have no authority over the military, and that the supreme court has no authority over the military neither, and they could take there gays in the military policy and pound it into there ass with it.
They needed to pass this legislation for one reason only, and it had nothing to do with gays in the military. This policy being passed set president on future policy enforced on the military by activist judges, that is all it did. Next thing you know, someone like sotomeyer will vote yes on not making it mandatory that servicemen and woman swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Then they could effectively turn the military on it's own people. You watch and see, I would bet money on it. It may be a long ways away, but it will happen.

Where is Congress, "activist judges", Sotomeyer and the Supreme Court in all of this?
None of that is relevant in any of this.
You forgot to mention one dude. Admiral Mullen.
He IS MILITARY.
It is "precedent", not president.

Thanks for the grammatical lesson, I forgot how to spell it. None of them are relevant YET. The activist judges are now being put into place by Obama "His last two appointments" which are on the supreme court. All of them will come into play later on down the road. And yes, Mullins is as much at fault as the rest of them.
I bet the Germans where the same way as you are right now until Hitler had his military turn the guns inward. If you don't think it can happen, you obviously don't study history.
Alot of Americans right now are thinking "It could never happen here", believe me...yes it can, and the crazies in DC are relying on you to think that it can't.

 

[Seawytch]

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???

Always have, one nighters, same as anyone else, military or not. But the article talks about short term relationships. So I suppose the one nighters are included. I could be wrong.

We can start with the fact that The Family Research Counsel's "studies" have been debunked ten ways to Sunday time and again. They either use flawed data or they intentionally misrepresent other people's data. The FRC is vehemently anti-gay so to expect a fair assessment of ANYTHING gay or lesbian from them is ridiculous.

Secondly, who ******* cares unless you are jealous that someone is getting more tail than you are. Of course gay MEN are going to be more promiscuous than heterosexual men. It isn't for heterosexual men's lack of trying. Straight men would be just as promiscuous as gay men are...if women let them.

As for the length of their relationships...you don't think that has anything to do with the way society views and treats their relationships? We aren't exactly promoting monogamy by not allowing gays and lesbians to enter into a legal marriage now are we? Society tells gays and lesbians that their relationships aren't worthy and don't deserve recognition and then are shocked when gays can easily walk away from a relationship.

What does any of this have to do with gays and lesbians serving honestly? All the arguments I've seen seem to advocate getting rid of gays and lesbians from the military altogether because none of them seem to be operating on the FACT that gays and lesbians are serving now. The only thing that will be changing is that the military won't be discharging them for their private, consenting adult behavior.