Army fired 11 soldiers in Jan. as openly gay

Translate this please.

I think Paul is saying who cares if you're gay, and if you're insecure just let a suspected gay individual know you aren't into that? lol

"I don't play," a simple message...

That's better

Paul, if you're "in a foxhole," nobody's going to be groping anyone, gay or straight. And frankly, since the military (and society in general) is 90% heterosexual, you're much more likely to be a victim of groping by a member of the opposite sex, whether or not you're in the military. Your comment was absurd.

LOL freedom, not absurd, just not well stated? Gay`s don`t frighten me, I know gay people. No problem for me to be in a fox hole next to one because I know I am in no danger from them.

Of course it would have taken a better reason than the last few wars to get me in a fox hole in the first place.

The people pushing the anti gay thing must have doubts about how they would act?

Ah, Paul! Gotcha -- my bad for misreading/misinterpreting what you meant. And I agree, perhaps the vehement homophobes have some unresolved sexual issues of their own...

You're a real sweetheart. The problem in the military isn't who might be gay but who is such a coward that he will leave his fellow soldier bleeding on the ground. If your such a coward in the face of the blood of your fellow soldiers you are a coward in the face of the enemy fire that wounded him. You don't understand duty. You don't deserve the uniform.

LOL

We have soldiers all over the world having rampant sex with impoverished prostitutes and this guy says gays shouldn't be in the military because of STDs. Find a better reason.

Hey Michael, guess what. Men who sleep with prostitutes are MUCH more lilely to get AIDS. Straight men are giving their wives AIDS because they shoot drugs and don't use clean needles or sleep with prostitutes and don't practice safe sex. Get a clue, Michael. Your a danger to yourself and others with that ignorance.

Some of those wives could be giving it to their husbands. Just sayin....

No Vis, it doesn't work that way. It is VERY much harder for women to give AIDS to men than for men to give AIDS to women. It has to do with how fluid is transferred. In the case of IV drug use, the women might get AIDS from the needle, but the transmission through sex is very unlikely.

One of the fastest growing groups of HIV infections is married women whose husbands either us IV drugs or sleep with prostitutes.

So, be careful!

The women got it from their OTHER men

That is possible, but again, they are unlikely to actually pass it to someone else.

"Why would a happily married father of two kids risk having his kids grow up fatherless because he contracted AIDS while trying to stop a sucking chest wound? He won't. The Soldier will die of his injury. "

If you were so concerned about your kids you wouldn't BE in the military AND have little kids. You could die at any time in war, or didn't you realize that? What a lame excuse.

Ok... to all you guys who have taken the opportunity to personally attack me:

1.) I'm in a combat zone right now. I've taken live fire. How about you, Vis? To call me a coward is an outrage.

2.) I NEVER said I would let the guy die. I was speaking generally. Personally, I would render aid. Many would. But, many more would not, especially if it was known that the injured Soldier was a homosexual.

3.) I am aware of the dangerous sexual activity of Soldiers and Sailors. But, few Solders consider general promiscuity as a serious threat to contracting AIDS; it is commonly agreed that homosexual promiscuity does.

4.) The threat to my wife and kids is precisely the reason I serve. In case you missed it, the 9/11 attack was against CIVILIANS, just like my wife and kids.

As I said, you may not LIKE what the results would be, but that is what the result would be. Homosexual Soldiers would likely die of their wounds on the battlefield.

Michael, I'm sorry, but whether or not soldiers "consider general promiscuity as a serious threat to contracting AIDS," facts are facts. Promiscuous sex of any kind (homosexual and/or heterosexual) puts a person at risk for HIV. The myth of HIV as a "gay disease" has been dispelled for many years now.

And I respect you for being in a combat zone. My brother-in-law through same-sex marriage (AKA my husband's brother) just came back from Iraq, so I have some insight into the stresses you're under. However, your assertions about homosexual soldiers dying on the battlefield are baseless. It's propaganda the army uses to justify their discrimination. Look at how many armies around the world accept openly gay and lesbian soldiers. NONE of them are experiencing ANY of the horrible problems that the military brass in this country warn will accompany the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The whole argument is just a poorly hidden attempt to veil real, hurtful discrimination.

So, Michael, you're not a coward who would leave another bleeding but those around you would. I get it. You just think so much less of those around you. You are brave and would save EVEN the gay man but others wouldn't. Hooray for you. Why spend your time here telling us that such horrible, unreasonable and dangerous fears exist in your fellow soldiers instead of talking to those fellow soldiers to remind them of their duty to all in uniform?

I don't think you're a coward, Michael, I just think you're grasping for reasons to support your baseless homophobia and you picked a really stupid one.

Why would a happily married father of two kids risk having his kids grow up fatherless because he contracted AIDS while trying to stop a sucking chest wound? He won't. The Soldier will die of his injury.

Save straight fellow soldiers, but let gay ones die? Does your patriotism end where your homophobia begins?

It's like some of you are totally detached from the reality of the people actually in the trenches, and instead visualize some alternate reality that does not exist.

The scenario I painted is an openly known homosexual with a sucking chest wound. The amount of blood loss here will be considerable. And you think that the majority of the people would splash around in a liter of his blood for 30 minutes or so? If you think that's true, I'm telling you that you are not living in reality.

You're not talking about pealing off a band-aid, and being exposed to a small amount of blood. Your hands are going to be drenched with the blood of your fallen comrade, and likely your face too-- from wiping your brow to get the sweat out of your eyes. Been there, done that. Let me tell you, it is an extremely messy affair.

Would a medic do this? Sure, most likely. But, most units DO NOT have a medic in tow. Instead, they have "combat life savers". These guys are folks from other jobs that were required to have the training, whether they wanted to or not. So again, if you are thinking that each unit has a medic that will treat a combat injured soldier, you are mistaken.

Let me again say that you may not like what I've said, but I've said is almost certainly true.

It's an argument based off a faulty premise.

Michael, why don't you do some investigating and see if in all of the world's armies which accept homosexuals, anything resembling your hypothetical situation has ever taken place. I would venture to guess that it has not. And it's interesting -- first you said that the soldier in your scenario was infected with HIV (does the military admit anyone infected with HIV?!?). Now you've extended it to include all openly homosexual soldiers. Are you actually going to tell me that soldiers would not make an effort to save a fellow soldier's life because he or she is gay? That's a slap in the face to all of my friends who have served in the military.

Actually, I do know around ten active duty military that are HIV pos. However, the majority of them are NOT gay, and have never slept with the same sex. Some used IV drugs with dirty needles, some got tainted blood when wounded in battle, and some, got HIV from unprotected sex with a prostitute...then took it to their wives. A couple of the wives are active duty, too. SO, Michael, I have to question your assumptions, once again.

You're right Michael most people would, like you, be afraid of catching teh gay from exposure to blood infected with teh gay!

/sarcasm

Here's the test to see if your concerns are genuine or based on homophobia:

Should straight HIV+ people be allowed in the military?

Should straight HIV+ people be allowed in the military?

No. For the same reasons stated above.

The problem is not that a person is a homosexual. The problem is that they are exposing others to risks that are beyond what they agreed to take on.

And it's interesting -- first you said that the soldier in your scenario was infected with HIV (does the military admit anyone infected with HIV?!?).

The answer is that the military will not admit an HIV pos person; it is a non-waivable disqualification.

Furthermore, I never said the Soldier was infected with HIV. I inferred that other Soldiers would be affraid that he was. Just to be clear about the whole thing...

So HIV+ people aren't allowed in the military anyway...

So what exactly is your objection to HIV- gay people serving in the military?

So what exactly is your objection to HIV- gay people serving in the military?

As I said in the very first post-- the problem is that a homosexual person injured on the battlefield may not be treated by his fellow soldiers for fear that they will expose themselves to HIV by splashing around in his blood for half an hour. It's the fear of the risk that will inhibit treatment, not necessarily the guy actually having HIV.

Here is EXACTLY what I said in the very first post:

The problem comes when a Soldier is unwilling to rescue or treat a fallen Soldier for fear that getting his blood all over him could result in him acquiring AIDS.

So what exactly did you not not understand about that? I really want to help you see my point, even if you don't agree with it....

Again, what are you doing to help these misguided souls who would act so egregiously?

What I don't understand is how one can contract HIV from someone who doesn't have HIV. As far as what goes on in peoples' heads, one can only speak for oneself.

fear that they will expose themselves to HIV by splashing around in his blood

One could make the case that the supposed high level of homophobia (according to MtG) that exists in the military is a good reason why the ban should be lifted.

They aren't banned. They just can't be honest about their sexuality. It's insane. Usually the military is on the leading edge of social change.

The only gay people who aren't banned are straight people.