No, it is not a situational ethics case.  But it is a prejudiced case.  As I stated, donating blood is not advancing a cause.  Except life.  Your attitude is reminiscent of the old myth of getting "black blood".  Here's a shocker for all the bigots out there - blood comes in only one color - red.  And it does not matter if you are black, white, pink, green or purple.  It does not matter if you are gay, straight, hermaphrodite, eunuch, spayed or three toed.  It is all red.  What does matter is your blood type and RH factor.  None of which have anything to do with the aforementioned differences between individual PEOPLE.

You are trying to sub-humanize a group of people.  No one has stated here that the homosexual LIFESTYLE is acceptable.  But then neither is a life of crime.  Yet I do not see you demanding that thieves not donate.  Why?  They are in a high risk group too, and they have done things immoral.  They have SINNED.  Yet apparently some sins are worse than others?  i guess that is the same as "2 legs better than 4" as well.

And it has everything to do with God Almighty.  At least if you believe in God and the teachings of the Church.  Even the most vile villain in Church Teaching is STILL a human being, endowed with all the natural rights that God has granted us.  And entitled  to the same respect AS human beings as the most sainted among us.  The situation ethics issue is your (or the person asking you the question) attempt to dehumanize a person because you do not like their life style.  You are not trying to stop the life style choice - since donating blood has nothing to do with that - but depriving them of any ability or capacity to do any good.  Like the lepers in ancient Israel that Jesus embraced!  That is the sad part.  As part of your jihad against the sin, you are trying to cut out not only the cancer, but the entire body.  The only logical extension of your thinking is to simply kill the host since it is not fit for anything else.  Sounds real Christian now doesn't it?

You apparently do not know the meaning of situational ethics.  It has nothing to do with having a choice between 2 unknowns.  It has everything to do with changing your ETHICS in a situation.  Accepting blood is not YOUR choice (unless you are choosing to live or die).  Nor is the donor YOUR choice (unless you have already done an autologous donation).  So there is no "situational ethics" involved here. My stand is unequivocal. Black or gay blood is fine with me.  HIV, Hepatitis, CJD and Malaria infected blood is not.  And none of the latter blood comes from any one race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. 

Here's a shocker for you too.  only 50% of HIV positive people in the US are gay.  The rest are hetero.  SO I guess that old married man can kill you just as fast (faster if he is LIVING with a hep positive person like a former blogger on this site).

Yes, because you throw it up at every chance.  Do you have a biological reason for hating gays?  Or is it that your faith teaches you it is wrong (it sure as hell does not teach you to hate them)?

Your faith teaches you hate is wrong, yet you are showing every indication of just that behavior.  I have not revealed some deep dark secret that no one here has ever known before.  You have stated your case for your faith numerous times so I fail to see how throwing your faith back at you when you are betraying it is somehow dirty pool.

 

You keep asserting that donating blood has nothing to do with the person's sexual behavior...but refuse to acknowledge the plain fact that before giving blood all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977 and those who say they have are permanently banned from donating.

This isn't my policy, but that of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration. Check it out their website below.  

 

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

Here is a cut and paste from the website:

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?

Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals.

........................

For making this decision of excluding those men who have sex with other men since 1977 from donating their blood, will you also accuse the FDA of trying to sub-humanize a group of people?

Well, you are wrong. Read the website.... it turns out it does matter to the Dept. of HHS and the FDA if the male has/is practicing homosexuality.

There are 10 very good reasons why the FDA doesn't allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood.

Again a cut and paste from the website:

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today's highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.
• Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called "window period". The "window period" is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.
• FDA's MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the "window period" of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA's MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA's first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

  

The FDA disagrees with you.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

• Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.
• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

 

Male to male sex has been associated with an increased risk of HIV infection at least since 1977. Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA. MSM continue to account for the largest number of people newly infected with HIV.

Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

This article from the AMerican Society for the defense of Tradition, Family and Property goes directly to the discussion....

When Does a Soldier Become Expendable?

Written by John Horvat II

Tuesday, 16 November 2010 17:00

How much is the life of an American soldier worth? When does a soldier become expendable? Those are the questions we need to ask in the coming days. A wounded soldier in Afghanistan will find himself airlifted half way around the world for treatment within hours. In this, we see the admirable care and great value given to American lives. However, such solicitude on the battleground is not shown off the battlefield. It seems there are times where the American solider becomes expendable. Of course, we are referring to the raging debate over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy inside the military. Everything is centered on a December 1 report which the military will release analyzing the impact of the repeal on the Armed Forces. The results of this “analysis” can be guessed. It seems almost senseless to go through the trouble to release it. Everything seems to indicate that it will discuss how to repeal, not if we should repeal, the ban on homosexuality in the military. It will conclude that inclusion of open homosexuals in the military will not have significant adverse effects. It will conclude that the soldier is expendable. He can be used for social experiments. He can be penalized for the religious values he holds. He can be deprived of the very freedom for which he fights. A joint Color Guard posts the colors during a Veterans Day ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington, Virginia. DOD photo by Cherie Cullen. The findings will be completely politically correct because a higher command than the Joint Chiefs of Staff has decreed that the American soldier is expendable. Judges, liberal pundits and legislators are all clamoring for the repeal with an urgency that defies the imagination. A single judge assumes almost dictatorial powers. Advocates cannot even wait for the December 1 “study” to validate their opinions. They must have the repeal now even if it appears to be rammed down the throats of the American people…even if it means making the American solider expendable. One might argue that it has not been proven that the entry of open homosexuals (which also includes bisexuals and the “transgendered”) into the military would make soldiers expendable. That is not the point right now. It is proven the advocates of repeal simply do not care to know one way or the other. They cannot even wait for a report to rubberstamp a decision that has already been made. At the same time, there is no doubt that it will affect the military. That military profession that demands decisiveness in action must now open its doors to the ambiguous bisexual and “transgendered” soldier. There are reports that higher military authorities have already informed officers that they must accept the decision or be labeled bigots and face expulsion. Added to the stress of combat, our soldiers will soon be forced to take extreme care to avoid any act, gesture or comment that might be construed to be “discrimatory” toward the new privileged class of homosexuals who will enter the military ready to report any “bigotry.” Chaplains face major problems since they must deal with the sin of homosexual acts. The service generals have all expressed major reservations about the move and its effect on morale. All of this to accommodate a tiny sliver of a minute minority that demands entry into the military. All of this treats honor, tradition, and distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil, so inherent to the military condition, as if they are irrelevant. Even the more practical matter of the danger of introducing into the battlefield a major category of men who cannot donate blood because of the risks of disease does not move repeal advocates. Soldiers of the 61st Calvary Regiment, U.S. Army patrol the Towr Gahr Pass, Nangarhar province, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Ryan C. Matson. The mixture of bloods on the battlefield does endanger the lives of soldiers. That soldier, that is taken with so much care off the battleground in Afghanistan to our hospitals in Germany, now runs the danger of being infected by his own comrades in arms by judicial and legislative fiat. No life is threatened by keeping the ban. As long as one soldier feels threatened by the climate created by repealing the ban, as long as one life might be at risk by tainted blood, as long as the soldier maintains a sense of honor, we should keep the ban. Indeed we must ask: When does a soldier become expendable?

I read almost all the comments.  Wow.  Good discussion.  I certainly appreciated the back and forth…lol.

As for the comment about it being just another job.  Well, hahahahahaha.  Can you be shot for walking off your job?  Can you be imprisoned for quitting?  Did you give an oath in the HR dept?  How often are you asked to kill and to be killed, work with explosives, etc?  Are you told what is becoming and acceptable behavior while you are not at work?  Are you allowed to have a public opinion on politics in the civilian world?  Maybe a semi-inflammatory bumper sticker on your car?  Try flying that in the military…that comment was ignorant, too ignorant for the poster (who is not) to make.

Denying the special nature and unique circumstances of the military makes it easier to say it should be just like society.  But it’s not.  Military men and women sacrifice multiple “freedoms” and “rights” to serve, to accord the opportunity for others to enjoy those rights at home and on the job.  Denying the unique reality of their situation does not further the argument anymore than saying, “Everyone is the same!”  And since the whole don’t ask don’t tell thing is an issue, we KNOW everyone is not the same.

Yes.  I think the military should have a voice in this decision.  Not the only voice, but certainly a primary role.

I was military.  My husband just retired this year after 24 years of service.  I served with lesbians.  I knew they were gay.  Everyone knew.  I showered with them in basic, in tech school, and at the gym.  Maybe I’m just not attractive enough for a lesbian come-on, but I was never approached.  Having them around never seemed weird to me.  I never felt like they were checking me out.  They were just one of the soldiers I served with.

Why is that important?  It occurs to me that the whole argument against living in close quarters is like closing the door after the horse is out.  It’s already happening.  IF don’t ask don’t tell is repealed, there is no need for special dorms, special anything.  Homosexuals serving in the military now don’t have those things, and it’s doable (for the most part).  Three little words in the reality of living change nothing.  Except they might be told to shut up because it is not appropriate to discuss sexual preferences on duty BY ANYONE.

Take any unit with a homosexual(s) and chances are most of the other soldiers know it.  They still work, shower, live together.  They’re still a functional unit.

I don’t think homosexuals should be given ANY special treatments or quarters.  You don’t join the military expecting it to cater to your lifestyle; you change your lifestyle to suit the military.  And if you can’t do that, it’s not the place for you.  (I mean who really wants to get up at 0500?  I’d have much rather slept in…but they just weren’t willing to accommodate me.  And green?  NOT my best color   Still I joined them, they didn’t join me.)

Ok, now here is my perspective.  Call me a homophobic, or a homo-lover, this is how I FEEL, right or wrong.

First of all, I do think there is a potential to undermine the public image and therefore the effectiveness of the military, if openly gay flamboyant homosexuals are “out.”  Call me crazy, but I don’t see our enemies quaking (and that is half the battle) or our country getting motivated/teary eyed/off the couch over a Richard Simmons type personality.

Are all homosexuals flamboyant?  No.  But some are, and that specifically has the potential to harm effectiveness/image.

But if the military continues its policy and doesn’t make special accommodations for sub-cultures, and expects every G.I. to exhibit the appropriate military bearing, that won’t be an issue.  If it is, (I knew a girl in basic who couldn’t stop giggling, I’m not kidding…she almost got me kicked out with her because it was so funny…but it was a nervous tick with her…and she was released from service because she could not exhibit proper military bearing no matter how much physical pain she endured.)

I know that’s not the same, but the idea behind it, many becoming one cohesive unit, is.

Second, I have a real issue with who is politicizing this agenda outside the military because none of these people really care about the military.  How can I tell?  Because for the most part they are silent on all other military matters, from pay, to length of deployments, PTSD, etc.  And because, HELLO, they don’t think military members should have a say.  Maybe the military should unionize like the rest of the gov….wouldn’t that be…IRONIC?

Anyway, it seems like just a step on a ladder, one of many sticks in their political fire, but no real dog in the fight. 

This is where I say some of my best friends are gay.  And it’s true.  And you know what?  Some of them would have made better soldiers.

I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision. 

I have only read the OP and the last page here but Tova that was brilliant and the most sensible covering of the topic I have seen and I have read a lot on this topic.

 

This is very true. I've known folks like this over my 24 years of service, but I also didn't go around flashing them either. Their presence  during private moments would be uncomfortable to say the least. I always ask (other males) how would they feel if I showered with their mother, wife or girlfriend, or daughter, all in the name of duty of course. I suppose one may ask a woman if they mind if a large supply of "other women" showered with their husbands. That kind of puts it more into perspective. Just because the gay or lesbian has the "same equipment" they are often given a pass. If anyone can honestly say they are comfortable with that, then I guess they truly do support gays in the military. If not, they are not looking at the issue deeply enough IMO. It's easy to be for something that one doesn't have to deal with daily. One doesn't have to look far to see examples of supposedly straight relationships broken up by "circumstances". I'm sure in those cases problems were buried deep, but it happens, and it is ugly.

I just wonder what effect be "openly" gay will have over the current situation. Perhaps those lesbians you showered with would have been more "aggressive" if their careers weren't on the line. Whose to say. I go back to my let everyone shower/sleep in the same quarters scenario if it really isn't an issue. That would really save the taxpayers some dollars.

No right or wrong on anyone's opinion in my blogs. Just open dialog. How you feel is how you feel.

I'm all for that. Personally I don't believe blatant expression of sexuality has any place in the military, gay or straight.

Yeah, that bugs me too.

And I'm glad I no longer have to deal with things like this, too. It was bad enough with one set of sexual problems, that wasted time and caused lose of personnel during periods of being shorthanded. I would like those serving to make the call though.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Once the military is handled by the politically correct crowd pushing their agenda, it's all over.

.........................................

After all this discussion, I agree with Elaine Donnelly that the military always had a common sense ban on homosexuality, and should maintain it.

AFTAH Interview with Elaine Donnelly: Warns of Radical Changes if Congress Repeals Military Homosexual Ban

TAKE ACTION: Elaine Donnelly rightly warns in an interview with AFTAH of the devastating impact of Obama’s plan to homosexualize our military. Have you contacted both your U.S. Senators to oppose repealing the military’s common-sense homosexuality ban? Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) says he has the votes to move forward on a Defense bill containing the repeal measure. A repeal vote by the lame-duck Senate could come any time after Dec. 1. Call 202-224-3121 or go to www.Congress.org to make your voice heard!

____________________________________

This interview [click HERE to listen] with Center for Military Readiness founder and president Elaine Donnelly aired Nov. 20, 2010, and was recorded Nov. 17. As the leading proponent of maintaining the military’s common-sense ban on homosexuality, Donnelly more than any other American has fought debilitating “politically correct” agendas in the Armed Forces. In this discussion, she covers:

• the unforeseen harm to good order and discipline that would result from allowing open homosexuals in the military;
• how the Pentagon working group report on the repeal of the “gay” ban is a thinly-veiled tool to advance President Obama’s radical plan to homosexualize the miltary; 
• how the Obama administration led by Defense Sec. Robert Gates has politicized the investigations of homosexual soldiers violating the existing homosexual ban — effectively neutralizing the law;
• why “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land;
• how pro-homosexual diversity sessions and policies would be foisted on the conservative military culture to enforce “sexual orientation nondiscrimination”;

   

• the radical effect on military housing policy resulting from repealing the “gay” ban;
• how religious serviemembers and chaplains who oppose homosexuality as a matter of faith and conscience could be targeted for disciplinary action in a homosexuality-affirming military — especially if their opposition were to become public;
• the implications of a “zero tolerance” policy for soldiers expressing opposition to homosexuals in the military;
• what the surveys actually show regarding military and public attitudes toward the military’s homosexuality ban. 

Tova

Nitro

Re: the highlighted.

This is true and the way the military institution always was .....until politics much involved with the sexual revolution entered the scene. The radical left and their mainstream organs have since then publicly pushed for the freedom to publicly exercise themselves without restraint. Once society permits "anything goes" sexual license, it follows all its institutions will be sexual revolutionized.

 

Yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture 57 – 40 along party lines, just three votes shy of breaking the GOP filibuster.

.......................................

Check out what's happening in the Canadian military! What happens when he is a "he" on Mondays but a "she" on Tuesdays?  This lunacy will be what happens here if the DADT is repealed.

Canadian military establishes dress rules for transsexuals

OTTAWA, December 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent addendum to the Canadian Forces military administration manual says that military personnel who change their sex or sexual identity “have a right to privacy and respect,” but must conform to the dress code and standards of deportment of their “target” gender.  Thus male soldiers who believe they are women will be required to wear women’s apparel, and vice versa.

The document defines transsexual as a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels they belong to the opposite sex, whether they have undergone sex-change surgery or not.

Rana Sioufi, a spokeswoman for the National Defense Department, told the media that the new directive was produced in response to inquiries from administrative staff on how to deal with gender-confused service members.

“The CF is unique in that it must recruit, house, clothe, train and deploy its members,” Sioufi said. “This requires clear direction and standardized instructions to deal with individuals who may not fall into the generally accepted gender categories.”

In 1998, Canadian Forces agreed to afford its soldiers sex-change operations, along with hormonal and psychiatric treatment, at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of between $20,000 and $40,000 per procedure.

Colonel Scott Cameron, director of medical services for the military in 1998, told the media at the time that the decision was a moral and medical obligation as most provincial health care plans pay for sex-change surgery. However, he called the desire to undergo “gender reassignment” an “illness.”

Scott Taylor, publisher of Esprit de Corps military magazine, told the National Post that most service members resent the “politically correct” policies of an “out of touch headquarters staff,” especially in light of the recent report by the military ombudsman that criticized the National Defence Department for curtailing support for veterans and the families of fallen soldiers.

“You couldn’t get much worse timing on that internally,” he said, commenting on the release of the transsexual dress code document on the heels of the ombudsman’s report. “It’s so removed from what the guys are facing over in Afghanistan ... That doesn’t really relate to dress codes of the transgendered.”

The full version of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, manual A-AD-265-000/AG-001, is available here.

Well if the US adapts the Canadian model, I suppose there will be a rush for those seeking sex changes. Why should they pay when the taxpayers can.

If cross dressing is allowed, the military will become a bizarre place indeed. More people that gravitate to that sort of thing  will become a large part of the force. That and the illegals the liberals are trying to give amnesty to by demanding military service. Strangely, a similar thing happened to ancient Rome. Not with gays of course, but with a largely foreign military (barbarians as they were called). Slowly regular Romans had no desire to serve in the military and the barbarians who now had the power just took it away. Well we see what happened to them. I wonder what our fate will be? Dependant on some guy that can barely speak English or has his pantie hose riding up to save us? Personally I hope the 2nd amendment stays in place, because I have a feeling it's going to be every man for themselves.

Today DADT is repealed. I suppose the only question that remains is will the number of gays, lesbians, and transsexuals joining make up for the heterosexuals that would no longer serve because of it. Only time will tell. It will be interesting to see how many homosexuals actually do serve and what will be the next special interest to petition to serve... the handicapped perhaps? I believe they have just as valid a claim as anyone else.

 

Yes, and imo a very imprudent slippery slope vote and sad day for America.

No long after the vote the rippling effect of attempting to legitimize and normalize homosexuality in other arenas began anew. Here's part of an article from AOL news.

The impact of today's Senate vote, which comes as the controversial issue of gay marriage moves through the legal system up to the U.S. Supreme Court, is certain to ripple beyond the armed forces.

"This is the linchpin for our movement," said Brad Luna, a former spokesman for the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign who now runs a media consulting firm. "Once you establish that, yes, gays and lesbians have the right to fight and die for their country, it opens up the door for so many other issues," such as marriage, adoption and the extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Gay rights advocates heralded the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004, a move followed by other states. Yet the military repeal marks the first time gays have been granted "federal equality," Luna said.

That sets a precedent for tackling the federal Defense of Marriage Act, another Clinton-era law that allows states to refuse recognition to same-sex relationships legally sanctioned by other states. The Pentagon cites DOMA as a barrier to extending to same-sex couples certain benefits, such as housing allowances, that it gives married military personnel.

...........................

Mark this:

The repeal of DADT will make high risk homosexual sex diseases service connected and will result in a steady increase of in the number of the enlisted seeking health benefits to cover life threatening diseases already rampant in the civilian homosexual community.

 

For sure...That's one question that remains to be seen. Another is how long will it be before we see rainbow flags flying alongside the American one?