General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 9)
16 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last
on Nov 15, 2010

lulapilgrim
This all boils down to the government playing social engineering with the armed forces forcing acceptance of homosexuality as normal. Why don't they ask themselves why the Federal Center for Disease control continues to bar homosexuals from giving blood.

They are looking at removing that ban.  The social issue aside, I agree with the removal.  It is predicated on the idea of "if one then all" which is not the case in any venue.  In addition to the question on homosexuality (male only it seems) is another one about the HIV test.  That one should cover it.  They do test the donation for HIV so one positive (false or not) will bar that person from ever donating again.

on Nov 15, 2010

They are looking at removing that ban.

I know.

It used to be that the Military institution had an uncompromising position in its policies concerning openly practicing homosexuality in its ranks and rightly so if we are to keep the true common good in mind and practice.

Lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military has been a major goal of the homosexualist's agenda. The liberal elements of the government are fighting over this, not becasue they are opposed, but becasue they want the credit for overturning the current policy.  Liberals, Obama, the activist judges, etc. don't really care about the military. It's a mad race for destruction of the military through social engineering. 

The social issue aside, I agree with the removal.

Sorry, DR G, there is no putting the social issue aside. Homosexuality is a social activity that has lots of issues, bad ones for the participants, for the military and for the greater society.

  

on Nov 15, 2010

This all boils down to the government playing social engineering with the armed forces forcing acceptance of homosexuality as normal. Why don't they ask themselves why the Federal Center for Disease control continues to bar homosexuals from giving blood.

My point is that we have mounting an obvious dichotomy in government.

on Nov 15, 2010

lulapilgrim

They are looking at removing that ban.
I know.

It used to be that the Military institution had an uncompromising position in its policies concerning openly practicing homosexuality in its ranks and rightly so if we are to keep the true common good in mind and practice.

Lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military has been a major goal of the homosexualist's agenda. The liberal elements of the government are fighting over this, not becasue they are opposed, but becasue they want the credit for overturning the current policy.  Liberals, Obama, the activist judges, etc. don't really care about the military. It's a mad race for destruction of the military through social engineering. 


The social issue aside, I agree with the removal.
Sorry, DR G, there is no putting the social issue aside. Homosexuality is a social activity that has lots of issues, bad ones for the participants, for the military and for the greater society.

  

Lula, I was commenting on the blood ban, not the military one.  Sorry, whether I agree with the sin or not, the fact they want to help others through donating blood should not be a political issue.  Period.

on Nov 15, 2010

Lula, I was commenting on the blood ban, not the military one.

OK. Sorry about that; I misunderstood.

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

They are looking at removing that ban. The social issue aside, I agree with the removal. It is predicated on the idea of "if one then all" which is not the case in any venue. In addition to the question on homosexuality (male only it seems) is another one about the HIV test. That one should cover it. They do test the donation for HIV so one positive (false or not) will bar that person from ever donating again.

Well this is one is which we disagree. According to the FDA, the tests for HIV can fail and have failed as in the tragic case of the Canadian Red Cross in which donors weren't properly screened and thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from infected blood.

Sorry, whether I agree with the sin or not, the fact they want to help others through donating blood should not be a political issue. Period.

Agree or not, homosexual sex is inherently biologically dangerous and devestating disease spreading and placating homosexuals that it is not is crazy.

Our blood donation policies should not exist to serve socio-political purposes and they certainly shouldn't be changed to to advance the goal of winning greater acceptance of homosexuality. And since the testing is not foolproof, Why must the risk be borne by the general public to satisfy the sensitivities of a few homosexuals?

 

 

on Nov 16, 2010

Well this is one is which we disagree. According to the FDA, the tests for HIV can fail and have failed as in the tragic case of the Canadian Red Cross in which donors weren't properly screened and thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from infected blood.

Anything can fail. Nothing is guaranteed.  However the chances now are extremely small.  Indeed, there is no guarantee that a hetero will not have HIV and it will be missed.  There is no way that a blood transfusion can be made risk free.  And the risk of a homosexual male donating tainted blood and it being missed is no greater than a heterosexual doing it.  And while 1 in 2.7 million may slip through, many thousands by the increase in the blood supply.  As with all things in life, there is a risk, but the reward far outweighs the risk.

Our blood donation policies should not exist to serve socio-political purposes and they certainly shouldn't be changed to to advance the goal of winning greater acceptance of homosexuality.

Allowing homosexuals to donate is not advancing a cause.  There is no "reward" (Unless you think a glass of orange juice and a pack of nabs to be a reward) in donating, and there is no social registry of donors.  It is one of the last altruistic things left in today's society where everyone has to be proclaimed a winner with grandiose trophies.  No trophies, no society page lists.  Nothing.  Just the quiet satisfaction a donor gets knowing they did something with no gain to themselves. 

Whether homosexuality is a sin or not is immaterial.  They are people, and as Christians, we cannot condemn the person (just the sin, remember?), nor create a new type of species to pigeon hole someone who has perhaps erred in one aspect of their lives, but not in all.  Donating blood has nothing to do with sexuality as STDS can be carried by anyone, and often is.  There are dozens of reasons for not accepting blood, only one that is predominantly (and not exclusively) related to the issue of homosexuality.  To deny a healthy non-infected male the ability to donate is just another way of demeaning them as a person who wants to give - not take.  This is not about "taking" anything (like the Civil Rights Issue).  Nor does it entail anyone else "giving" to allow them to donate.  As I said, it is one of the last selfless acts a person can do - and no one cares, needs to know, or is rewarded for it.

on Nov 16, 2010

And the risk of a homosexual male donating tainted blood and it being missed is no greater than a heterosexual doing it.

Also a good point. I'm straight and I can't donate (well only at "special" blood centers, cash paid for it though) due to anthrax vaccine injections.

I do see Lula's point (as the current rules stand) from an equal opportunity, governmental view point. I'm for no special treatment for any group. Everyone medically able should be allowed to give blood. Every citizen should be able to serve in the military and keep their yap shut about their sexuality. Every man should be able to marry a willing woman... no special treatment.

on Nov 18, 2010

Allowing homosexuals to donate is not advancing a cause.

Yes, indeed homosexualists use blood banks to promote their agenda which is to normalize and legitimize their lifestyle.  

Well this is one is which we disagree. According to the FDA, the tests for HIV can fail and have failed as in the tragic case of the Canadian Red Cross in which donors weren't properly screened and thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from infected blood.

Anything can fail. Nothing is guaranteed. However the chances now are extremely small.

Precisely because lives are at stake is why we in the USA should take a lesson from Canada where the movement to accept homosexuality as a normal, legitimate lifestyle has resulted in drastic legal changes to all aspects of Canadian society. The shift in accepting homosexuality as normal, even good, was accomplished by some in the medical and psychiatric communities as well as the media that has suppressed the medical evidence of the health risks of homosexuality.

After being hit with thousands of infections and billions in financial compensation, Canada came to its senses at least in the area of blood donations which are based on scientific evidence rather than on concerms of political correctness. Canada now has set it's national screening standards and has a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with another man since 1977. 

And yes, the leftist libertines are agitating to drop all references to homosexuality on questionnairres as well as cutting the ban to one year, but in this case, Canada is taking its responsibility seriously and revising the policy even if the risk was only marginally increased.

 

And while 1 in 2.7 million may slip through, many thousands by the increase in the blood supply.

Again this is about the duty of protecting the public from infected blood. The tests today are not 100% accurate and not good enough if you are that one that catches HIV.

Indeed, there is no guarantee that a hetero will not have HIV and it will be missed.

Donating blood has nothing to do with sexuality as STDS can be carried by anyone, and often is. There are dozens of reasons for not accepting blood, only one that is predominantly (and not exclusively) related to the issue of homosexuality.

Yes, of course donating blood has to do with sexuality. Rectal sex produces bacterioligical life and is an almost perfect way to transmit blood borne germs. People contract HIV, syphilis, malaria, Hepatitis C, etc. from donated blood of an infected person.  

In addition to blood testing, sexual behavioral screening questions are necessary and it can't be denied that homosexuals are a high risk group. Canada's blood banks know this.

This is not about "taking" anything (like the Civil Rights Issue). Nor does it entail anyone else "giving" to allow them to donate. As I said, it is one of the last selfless acts a person can do - and no one cares, needs to know, or is rewarded for it.

Do not blood banks make millions of dollars every year selling blood?

 

on Nov 18, 2010

Yes, indeed homosexualists use blood banks to promote their agenda which is to normalize and legitimize their lifestyle.

I fully fail to see how donating blood is advancing a cause.  When you donate, no one can tell if you are male, female, gay, straight or an hermaphrodite.  There is not enough time to promote a cause.

After being hit with thousands of infections and billions in financial compensation, Canada came to its senses at least in the area of blood donations which are based on scientific evidence rather than on concerms of political correctness. Canada now has set it's national screening standards and has a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with another man since 1977.

Uh, Canada has not changed its policy since 1983 (the same year the US put in the ban).  Your information is not correct.

Again this is about the duty of protecting the public from infected blood. The tests today are not 100% accurate and not good enough if you are that one that catches HIV.

As I said, no test is.  How do you tell if someone has been exposed to CJD or Hepatitis?  Are we to now ban everyone since both are equally as deadly, just as hard to detect in early stages, and not discernible by lifestyle?  Even AIDS is not RESTRICTED to gay lifestyle, nor are you GUARANTEED to contract if if you are gay.  That is why it is much more prevalent in heterosexuals in Africa.

Again, NOTHING is GUARANTEED.  Simple surgery is a risk.

Again this is about the duty of protecting the public from infected blood. The tests today are not 100% accurate and not good enough if you are that one that catches HIV.

As I said.  More die from Hepatitis infected blood today than get sick from HIV infected blood.

Yes, of course donating blood has to do with sexuality

You have never donated or you would not make such a stupid statement.  You do not donate out of your ass.  Donating blood has nothing to do with your sexual preference.  Getting HIV does, but that is what screening is for and read above for worse boogeymen.

Do not blood banks make millions of dollars every year selling blood?

Only the pay you ones and they are not common (at least not in this area).  DONATING means giving, not getting paid for.  The ARC and VBS are both non-profit, so while they may not be donating donated blood (they have to pay the employees) they are also not on the NY Stock Exchange.

let me put it to you this way.  There are not enough people donating, so surgeries are delayed or canceled (Go to the AMA site for validation).  People die because of it.

What is worse, dying because of no blood, or risking a one in 500,000 chance of getting infected blood and living?

on Nov 18, 2010

Yes, indeed homosexualists use blood banks to promote their agenda which is to normalize and legitimize their lifestyle.

I fully fail to see how donating blood is advancing a cause. When you donate, no one can tell if you are male, female, gay, straight or an hermaphrodite. There is not enough time to promote a cause.

The individual, who has not had sex with a male since 1977, nor engaged in illegal IV drug use, nor participated in prostitution, donating his blood is one thing, all well and good. But in this case we are talking about the big picture of homosexuality and the agenda of normalizing it making it respectable, acceptable and even good.  We are talking about the duty and responsibility of those in charge regarding sound health policies to protect the people from getting infected blood. And that duty necessarily involves identifying and excluding the people in high risk groups i.e. practicing homosexuals. Homosexualists do not want homosexuality to be singled out and those who practice it forbidden to donate blood. If they can get AMerica's blood centers to accept blood from those who practice homosexuality in the nations blood banks, a practice that has been forbidden for decades and rightly so, then they've won their cause.  

 

on Nov 18, 2010

After being hit with thousands of infections and billions in financial compensation, Canada came to its senses at least in the area of blood donations which are based on scientific evidence rather than on concerms of political correctness. Canada now has set it's national screening standards and has a lifetime ban on donations from men who have had sex with another man since 1977.

Uh, Canada has not changed its policy since 1983 (the same year the US put in the ban). Your information is not correct.

 

I don't know when Canada formed its policy of a lifetime ban on donations from homosexuals. I do know that it was in the early 80's, from 1981-86 that the Canadian company, Connaught, sold AIDS and Hepatitis C contaminated blood which infected thousands of Canadians.   

But WHEN Canada formed its policy is not the issue, rather it's that Canadian standards include a lifetime ban, something I think the USA should adopt.

 

 

 

on Nov 18, 2010

Do not blood banks make millions of dollars every year selling blood?

The answer is yes.

let me put it to you this way. There are not enough people donating, so surgeries are delayed or canceled (Go to the AMA site for validation). People die because of it.

What is worse, dying because of no blood, or risking a one in 500,000 chance of getting infected blood and living?

Oh situation ethics.

I can tell you that the Canadians who were tragically given the blood infected with HIV/AIDs are now dead. Blood tainted with HIV/AIDS is a death sentence.  

Furthermore, as far as I know there is no penalty for lying to a blood bank about one's sexual behavior and illegal IV use. I think since lives are at stake, Congress should make this offense a felony.

In the meantime, in order to achieve their goal of normalization, homosexualists are putting pressure on the ARC and other organizations to abandon decades of sound health policies.

 

on Nov 18, 2010

Yes, of course donating blood has to do with sexuality

You have never donated or you would not make such a stupid statement. You do not donate out of your ass. Donating blood has nothing to do with your sexual preference.

Re: the highlighted....Oh really? Then why

Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

on Nov 18, 2010

Oh situation ethics.

Situation Ethics?  Who made you god?  ...{delete}...

Sorry, donating blood is not a homosexual activity,  it is not a sin.  It is not forbidden by any article of faith, tenet or creed.  Your faith teaches you to hate the sin and love the sinner.  You apparently are trying to do the opposite.

Donating blood is not advancing anything except the sanctity of life.  YOu seem to want to say that life is only sacred when it suits your purpose.  YOu are the one practicing situational ethics.

BTW:  Canada and the US BANNED blood from homosexual males (not females) at the same time (since the supplies intermingle at points).  There was no backtracking by Canada - yet.

I can tell you that the Canadians who were tragically given the blood infected with HIV/AIDs are now dead. Blood tainted with HIV/AIDS is a death sentence.

Not ALL.  Nor are all AMERICANS given infected blood dead, but many are.

Shit happens.  Without the infected blood ALL would be dead now.  It does not grow on trees.

on Nov 18, 2010

What is worse, dying because of no blood, or risking a one in 500,000 chance of getting infected blood and living?

Situation Ethics? Who made you god? ...{delete}...

Yes, this is a situation ethics question that you posed to me and it has nothing to do with God Almighty.

Now I'll give you a situation ethics question back...you need to be given a blood transfusion and the blood bank gives you a choice between two...one donated by a practicing homosexual and the other one donated by a married man...which one will you choose?

Sorry, donating blood is not a homosexual activity, it is not a sin. It is not forbidden by any article of faith, tenet or creed. Your faith teaches you to hate the sin and love the sinner. You apparently are trying to do the opposite.

 If you'll kindly notice, no where in this discussion have I brought up my faith or sin, but you have several times.

 

 

 

 

16 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last