Comments on: Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? http://www.jdpendry.com/2010/02/10/repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/ Live free or die Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:31:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: mcarl http://www.jdpendry.com/2010/02/10/repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/comment-page-1/#comment-82 mcarl Wed, 12 May 2010 18:35:18 +0000 http://www.jdpendry.com/?p=30#comment-82 As a veteran, it's completely unthinkable that the homosexual policy would be overturned. Conditions in the military are different than in civilian employment. You're forced into close quarters in the service. You're forced into situations in combat or in an alert situation that make wondering about the mindset of your comrades unthinkable. The anti-American forces must be stopped. As a veteran, it’s completely unthinkable that the homosexual policy would be overturned. Conditions in the military are different than in civilian employment. You’re forced into close quarters in the service. You’re forced into situations in combat or in an alert situation that make wondering about the mindset of your comrades unthinkable. The anti-American forces must be stopped.

]]> By: vineyardm http://www.jdpendry.com/2010/02/10/repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/comment-page-1/#comment-24 vineyardm Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:29:04 +0000 http://www.jdpendry.com/?p=30#comment-24 My first line of concern is the safety of those serving in the military - and as long as the DADT policy makes sense. Someone who feels that they have homosexual tendencies is informed that acting out those homosexual tendencies is contrary to good order and discipline and would be cause for discharge. (Most people can control their sexual urges - such as those who choose to wait until married ...so it is not outside the realm of reasonableness that someone who felt that they were "made homosexual" could refrain from engaging in the act - and could serve in the military without violating any rules. BUT once the person engages in homosexual conduct, the person becomes more likely to become at risk for various diseases. I recently gave blood - and there were multiple checks/rechecks in the donation questionaire that conveyed the concept that if I had ever had sex with another male, I was precluded from donating blood. These checks are designed to protect the population; in the 1980’s, there were a number of people who got AIDS from donated blood, and this drove the blood banks to put into place the myriad of screening questions and to test all donated blood for AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. (But tests might not detect the viruses if the infection was recent, and therefore the donated blood could still give a recipient AIDS ...hence the need for honesty on the questionaire - and the importance of not using donated blood from homosexual males.) I would suggest that anyone proposing the inclusion of homosexual males into the military be asked if they would mind receiving donated blood where homosexuals were allowed and encouraged to donate blood. If the person declined - and if they would not want their wife or child to receive possibly tainted blood - I would state that “CASE MADE”. (And BTW - STFU!). The military goes into harms way. Military personnel often end up where blood is splattered, and the guy next to you might end up giving you first aid, or you might be giving him first aid ...and there is zero time to “gown up”, get on gloves, get on protective glasses, etc. The buddy system, relying on each other to provide emergency care is also predicated on the assumption that rendering aid won’t give AIDS! Also, I heard about a Culinary Specialist (food worker) at a Naval Base who was found to have Hepatitus....which he got by homosexual acts. There was a need to screen hundreds of sailors who ate at that galley. We don’t want people who handle our food to have serious diseases which could become life-threatening to others ....and it can take weeks or months from performing an unsafe act until the disease is detectable - yet the person might be able to infect others with that disease! Why add to the risk? My first line of concern is the safety of those serving in the military – and as long as the DADT policy makes sense. Someone who feels that they have homosexual tendencies is informed that acting out those homosexual tendencies is contrary to good order and discipline and would be cause for discharge. (Most people can control their sexual urges – such as those who choose to wait until married …so it is not outside the realm of reasonableness that someone who felt that they were “made homosexual” could refrain from engaging in the act – and could serve in the military without violating any rules. BUT once the person engages in homosexual conduct, the person becomes more likely to become at risk for various diseases.

I recently gave blood – and there were multiple checks/rechecks in the donation questionaire that conveyed the concept that if I had ever had sex with another male, I was precluded from donating blood. These checks are designed to protect the population; in the 1980’s, there were a number of people who got AIDS from donated blood, and this drove the blood banks to put into place the myriad of screening questions and to test all donated blood for AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. (But tests might not detect the viruses if the infection was recent, and therefore the donated blood could still give a recipient AIDS …hence the need for honesty on the questionaire – and the importance of not using donated blood from homosexual males.)

I would suggest that anyone proposing the inclusion of homosexual males into the military be asked if they would mind receiving donated blood where homosexuals were allowed and encouraged to donate blood. If the person declined – and if they would not want their wife or child to receive possibly tainted blood – I would state that “CASE MADE”. (And BTW – STFU!).

The military goes into harms way. Military personnel often end up where blood is splattered, and the guy next to you might end up giving you first aid, or you might be giving him first aid …and there is zero time to “gown up”, get on gloves, get on protective glasses, etc. The buddy system, relying on each other to provide emergency care is also predicated on the assumption that rendering aid won’t give AIDS!

Also, I heard about a Culinary Specialist (food worker) at a Naval Base who was found to have Hepatitus….which he got by homosexual acts. There was a need to screen hundreds of sailors who ate at that galley. We don’t want people who handle our food to have serious diseases which could become life-threatening to others ….and it can take weeks or months from performing an unsafe act until the disease is detectable – yet the person might be able to infect others with that disease! Why add to the risk?

]]>