Another Reason Gays Should not Serve
by Big Dog on Jan 11, 2008 at 12:24 General
I know there are many arguments about whether or not homosexuals should serve in the military. There are many homosexuals who are patriots and who would love to serve their country. Having that desire does not mean they should be able to serve or that they have a right to serve. I have my own views about why they should not serve, openly or otherwise, and many have taken me to task for my views. So be it. However, this story from Stars and Stripes shows how harmful allowing homosexuals to serve can be and this episode shows the dangers involved:
Eighteen British military members and six contractors are having their blood checked for infections and diseases after receiving emergency war-zone transfusions that might not have been properly screened by U.S. officials, British authorities said Thursday.
The transfusions were performed at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan at various times since 2001, according to the British Ministry of Defence.
While U.S. and U.K. policy is to use certified blood products in combat zones, donors are used in emergency situations or when there are supply shortages, according to an MOD release. Policy also dictates that these emergency samples be retrospectively tested to ensure they are clean.
“However, not all of the emergency collections had samples that made it back to the U.S. for retrospective testing,†according to a statement from Derek Twigg, the U.K. undersecretary of state for defence. “This is the key reason for offering testing to the recipients of these U.S. emergency blood collections.â€
Why is this of concern? The blood is retrospectively tested. In other words it is tested after the transfusions. Unfortunately, some injuries require blood quickly and prior to proper screening in order to save a life. The homosexual male population accounts for the majority of HIV cases in the US and Western Europe:
In North America and Western Europe HIV infection and AIDS cases have been concentrated among men who have sex with men and among users of intravenous drugs. In some US cities up to half of homosexual and bisexual men are infected (440) (see Table 1, p. 4). In the population as a whole, however, infection is uncommon–0.12 percent among US military recruits in 1988, for example (442). BNET
Additionally, the US accounts for 60% of the world’s reported cases. This might just be because we have a better reporting system but no matter the reason, the fact is allowing homosexual men to serve would increase the likeliness that emergency transfusions would result in the transmission of the AIDS virus. The reason that the military tests low is because the test is required for entrance into the service which would exclude carriers prior to entry. This means that about 50% of gay men would be excluded from entering. It also means that those who make it through pose a risk to their fellow soldiers because the gays are most likely to get infected. We can exclude IV drug users because they would not make it in and it is unlikely, with drug testing, that those who took up that vice would remain in the service.
This will cause people to make all kinds of excuses and try to rationalize why gays should be permitted to serve. No matter what the argument, allowing them to serve poses a danger to others.
Imagine surviving a terrible injury only to be diagnosed with AIDS. Don’t ask, don’t tell could be a death sentence.
Tags: AIDS, blood transfusions, gays, HIV, homosexuals, Military, serving
Do you think the military should also exclude those who have used intravenous drugs?
Besides cross posting this on my site, I also posted it at Hannity Forum: http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=478371
Altered the title just a little if you don’t mind, Brother. Man is this a well written article.
Respectfully,
Bosun
Hey Ernie,
It is my humble opinion that we should bar drug users. Besides, Big Dog also addressed it in his article.
“We can exclude IV drug users because they would not make it in and it is unlikely, with drug testing, that those who took up that vice would remain in the service.”
Do you agree that gays should not serve?
I am not sure but I think that IV drug use excludes service. However, I think they should not be allowed to serve.
Not anymore, Big Dog. Not anymore. Not with the current amount of waivers and how desperate they are for bodies.
I think that’s why I’m for gays in the service at the moment. I’d rather have somebody who can pass their ASVAB, had no crime, and is not a drug user, but happens to be gay, than a straight, dumb, criminal, drug addict with attitude. I’m already seeing the results of letting the latter in the Army. Plus, if you think that gays aren’t already serving, you’re mistaken. I’ve known that at least three of my soldiers were. They were some of my best, and you only would figure it out by analysis. Didn’t impact work at all.
Army Sargent,
We all know that gays have served from the first homo act up until present. At one of my units, three crew members came back positive HIV during one six month deployment. The saddest was a young quartermaster who just made QM3. XO, Chaplain, and Medical Officer had to break the news. I suspect some of his bunk buddies were sweating the disease for a while. (The kid was a homosexual.) We found out after his positive results. The MO really wanted to get his partners notified. Well he was shipped out the a medical hold unit at NAS Jacksonville.
I recall in my early days in the Navy, the overseas military base that I was at had an aggressive venereal disease testing program (Gonorrhea and other exotic SE Asian diseases) in conjunction with the public health program and bar owners association. The testing was done on Wednesdays, results were immediate. Well the negative test was only good until the next sexual encounter. Venereal disease transmission studies have been done for the last 50 years. Perhaps you should read up on public health studies.
Now adays, HIV is nothing to joke or laugh about. It is much more of a bad ass disease than the old clap was. We have a lot of other STDs that cause problems with moral and readiness. And, HIV knows no boundaries.
But, I side with Big Dog. A little risk assessment and cut down on exposure.
I am not saying that gay folks are not capable or don’t work hard. For the record I have known some gay soldiers and they were great. But, they bring something to the table that might expose others to risk.
And this thing that “they bring to the table” can only be exhibited using statistics from 1989?
Come on, Biggy – you should be able to find something a wingnut wrote about AIDS and queer folks from this decade, right?
Dan,
The fact is homosexual men and IV drug users account for the largest HIV population. That is statistically proven. Heterosexual men do not just get HIV and they do not transmit HIV.
This is from 2001:
Twenty years after the first report on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States, studies of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and sexual behaviors suggest a resurgent HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM) (1,2).
< href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0906/is_21_50/ai_75644283">Here
The links to data to more recent was in the article from 1989 if you had looked. It goes from then and moves forward…
There is no denying, except in the politically correct world, that HIV and AIDS is prevalent in the homosexual male population. Heterosexual sex is unlikely to result in transmission unless one partner was involved in a high risk behavior one of which is men having sex with men.
And Dan, I know you and your sex partner meatbrain have trouble understanding things. You like to put a rightwing bent on stuff with which you do not agree. So, just for you, here is the information from the Centers for Disease Control:
* AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.
* MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
* In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive.
CDC
Call it right wing all you want but this is from the CDC. Go read it and then come back and debate with me. I am happy to educate you.
Educate me about what? That you’re kidding yourself?
Fact: Straight women represent the largest gain group in terms of new HIV cases.
By your logic, women should not be allowed to serve. And how do you know that the guy you’re treating hasn’t used needle based drugs, which puts him in the _highest_ risk category?
It’s amazing to me how many silly arguments you’ll crap out to deal with your own clearly compromised masculinity.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/index.htm
Interesting. Should we also exclude black folks from military service as well?
Dan,
If you want to comment her that is fine but don’t show up with personal attacks about my masculinity or anything else. State your facts and move on.
If women are the fastest growing group it is because of either IV drug use or sexual practices with high risk people. And let us not forget that most prostitutes are women who have risky sexual partners.
Your “FACT” is a worldwide statistic. In the US this is not reported as the case MSM accounts for the most and women are not mentioned except as people who have sex with a high risk partner.
I am pretty sure that people who used IV drugs in the past are excluded from military service.
Women should be allowed to serve if they test negative for HIV. If they use IV drugs or are prostitutes then no, they should not.
The increase in blacks is because of IV drug use. The color or sex of a person does not cause AIDS. Behavior does. If they used IV drugs or have AIDS they should not be allowed to serve regardless of color
This is from what you linked, if you had bothered to read it:
For black men, the most common ways of getting HIV are (in order)
1. having unprotected sex with another man who has HIV
2. sharing injection drug works (like needles or syringes) with someone who has HIV
3. having unprotected sex with a woman who has HIV
For black women, the most common ways of getting HIV are (in order)
1. having unprotected sex with a man who has HIV
2. sharing injection drug works (like needles or syringes) with someone who has HIV
Blacks at higher risk for HIV are those
* who are unaware of their partner’s risk factors
* with other STDs (which affect more blacks than any other racial or ethnic group)
* who live in poverty (which is about one quarter [25%] of all blacks)
NONE OF THESE HAVE TO DO WITH THEIR COLOR. It is the behavior!
Keep in mind, poverty does not cause AIDS. Living in poverty leads to behavior such as drug use or prostitution, that spreads AIDS
So wait: What if a gay guy has fewer sex partners than a straight guy? Say the gay guy has been in a monogamous relationship since high school and and the straight guy has had more partners than Hugh Hefner?
Which person should be excluded from service?
It would depend on the kinds of partners. Multiple partners puts people at greater risk but MSM is always HIGH risk.
They don’t ask how many partners a person had. One things is sure, the prevalence of HIV in the military is low for a reason.
Perhaps she should also exclude those who are impoverished. As you noted, impoverished people are more likely to participate in risky behavior, therefore should we set a minimum house hold income for those who serve?
It would depend on the kinds of partners. Multiple partners puts people at greater risk but MSM is always HIGH risk.
And how would you determine that?
The military does HIV testing before one can enter and periodically. Anyone with it is not qualified for retention and cannot be sent overseas.
When I joined there was a box that asked if you had ever engaged in homosexual behavior. They cannot ask that now. That is how you would determine high risk behavior. They already ask about drug use etc and they check criminal records so they would know about prostitution if a person had been arrested.
Poverty is a risk factor but if a person has not engaged in the risky behavior and tests negative for HIV then he should be able to serve.
However, those in poverty are not likely to pass the tests to get in the service because many never finish school. There is an educational requirement.
I looked up the Army qualifications and current or history of drug dependence or abuse is disqualifying.
So the occasional HIV test satisfies you for hetero folks and drug users, but not for queer folks?
However, those in poverty are not likely to pass the tests to get in the service because many never finish school. There is an educational requirement.
Yes. I keep hearing about all those people getting rejected from the service because they can’t get themselves past a couple of throw away questions.
Riiiiiight.
Have you ever taken the ASVAB? It is not a few throw away questions.
I already indicated that drug abuse current or past is disqualifying. Homosexuality is a high risk and should be disqualified as well.
You use the term queer folks as if I made that statement. You are trying to show me as a bigot by using words I did not use. Try a little honesty..
Dan the test is only good to the next partner or encounter. Some gays, not all, like the russian roulette game of anonymous sex.
I would like to see risks go down. You and your partner may be safe because you choose to stay together. How about those who are not.
Larry Craig was scary, he, may or may not have been trolling bathrooms. I would not want to get a blood transfusion from him. Who on earth knows were some people have been from night to night if they practice unsafe sex practices.
IM BISEXUAL AND IN THE BRITISH ARMY, I SERVED AS A SECTION COMMANDER IN IRAQ ON THE FRONT LINE AND FOR PEOPLE TO TELL ME I CANT SERVE MY COUNTRY MAKES ME SICK, WHOEVER THINKS YOU SHOULDNT SERVE, THEN SPEND A WHILE ON THE FRONT LINE WITH ME AND SEE IF YOU ANTI GAY PEOPLE WOULD LAST, WITH ME AND MY STRAIGHT BROTHERS ON THE THE LINE, DO NOT INSULT ME OR ANYBODYS GAY/STRAIGHT CAPABILITIES TILL TILL YOU SEE WHAT WE REALLY CAN DO, BUT YOUS ARM CHAIR WATCHERS NEVER WILL
honestly this whole thing is nothing but a line of rubbish. i am curently serving in the US millitary and i am openly gay when in privet or on leave. to say i shouldn’t be able to serve is not only a slap to the face but down right bigotry. I would pay to see you keep with me and my men bigdog any day any time. further more the gays who have HIV/AIDS are no bigger a risk to our servicemen than IEDs or snipers. also you further prove to me that the gays who server are going to risk their BROTHERS in arms lifes with a selfish loveless act of a single evening
Vix,
I have no doubt you are good at what you do.
I am an old retired soldier right now but when I served I could do circles around you.