Posted on 01/17/2011 1:36:25 PM PST by US Navy Vet
An Iowa congressman is co-sponsoring a bill aimed at preventing homosexuals from being allowed to serve in front-line combat units.
In the long debate leading up to Congress' lame-duck repeal of the ban, opponents pointed out that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military could create serious morale problems as it would force heterosexual soldiers to live in close quarters with homosexuals who might be attracted to them. HIV-infected troops were also a concern, because they could infect others if wounded in combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Not unless Liberals are demoted to history. They want women and open gays in front line combat. Ridiculous.
The problem is that even a non-front-line job can become front-line if the enemy chooses to attack.
To me, this looks like a way for gays to get all the benefits of serving without taking any of the risks.
I can already see our enemies trying to sue us through some goofy UN “World Court” for exposing their soldiers to HIV. Germ warfare. It’s a crazy world out there.
Problem is that gays are prone to HIV/AIDS.
Other troops will fear to be exposed to them in situations where hetero’s could be contaminated by homo bodily fluids (training, combat, injury treatment—not just consensual peanut butter packing in the showers).
Homo behavior is high risk behavior, that if it applied to say, guns, would be banned.
This proposal sounds too much like compromise to me.
It will, and don't call me Shirley.
So the conservatives have already given up on repealing it? Now they are just asking for a few exemptions?
“To me, this looks like a way for gays to get all the benefits of serving without taking any of the risks”
Bingo.
And as far as “a risk of being exposed to HIV on the front line” - that’s a straw man argument. They’re exposed to it now and don’t know about it until after the fact. The problem arises when you’re treating a flamer and not wanting to get his guts all over you for risk of infection.
Every man in combat is a potential blood donor.
Why not just reinstate the DADT policy as before?
As a hetero, I would fear homo’s in contact with me, for health risk reasons. I can put myself at risk for PC purposes, but can not afford to risk family.
Just as I don’t do high risk sport activities for sake of family, I (and many others) would not want to be in situations of unnecessary risk, which would include being in the military, combat arms especially, where contamination risk by an infected homo is high.
Dittos for someone with any communicatable disease.
Safe beats PC (sorry).
Which they now have...
My concern as well.
The insideous road to desensitization will always seem easy when we win small battles but lose the war.
I don't know what Duncan Hunter could be thinking of here.
Just do it.
Are there any active soldiers on here who can tell us how often a soldier is tested for HIV?
As a 22-year veteran (U.S.N) I would like to see this repeal. I am not against gay people; they just don’t belong in the Navy and they can live their life as they like as long as they leave me alone. I must admit however, I always had my doubts about some of the women in the Navy - a little too butch for me.
I sure wouldn’t want any Hiv/aids casualty getting blood on me. If they should become injured, who will go to their aid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.