Replies

Looking at CDC's numbers, there's a significant number of HIV cases that aren't caused by homosexual contact –

Well, since you brought it up, let us, in deed, look at the numbers:

Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70%25 to 78%x,13 of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%18 to 39%19 to 59%.20 As of 1992, 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.21 [emphasis added] The Seattle sexual diary study3? reported that gays had, on a yearly average:

1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
2. exchanged saliva with 96;
3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
4. ingested fecal material from 19.
No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.

From 1981 through 1999, there were 751,965 cumulative reported cases of AIDS in the U.S. At least 56 percent of the AIDS diagnoses occurred in gay or bisexual men. In other words, two percent of the population had at least 56 percent of those reported AIDS diagnoses. The second largest group was IV drug users. What about heterosexual sex? In the U.S., persons who have been infected with HIV through heterosexual contact have usually had vaginal or anal intercourse with someone in one of the high-risk categories -- a bisexual male or someone who is an IV drug user. [13]

Beyond all of the continual testing expense, I assume (perhaps, incorrectly) that you are aware that these discharged veterans would all be eligible for unlimited treatment through the VA, costing the taxpayers billions. From a common sense standpoint, this fact alone makes it imperative to keep the queers out of the military as much as is possible.

…and since we already know, from the sheer fact that we're talking about this, that "don't ask don't tell" doesn't keep gays from joining the military, why not play it safe and eliminate the prohibition on sodomy and instead discharge those with the virus, of all genders and orientations?

The number cited in the preceding paragraphs, alone, make your argument specious. However, there is still the issue of “good order and discipline” which you are studiously avoiding. Are you afraid to address that issue?

However, there is still the issue of “good order and discipline” which you are studiously avoiding. Are you afraid to address that issue?

I've addressed it numerous times, but this time, I'll put it to you directly:

To maintain "good order and discipline," do you believe that heterosexual soldiers who admit to having engaged in oral or anal sex with a member of the opposite sex, including, if they are married, their own wives, should be brought up on charges stemming from an Article 125 violation?

If not, why not? How is a straight soldier engaging in a form of sexual contact that is clearly against regulations according to Article 125 any less a breach of good order and discipline?