Bryan Fischer #fundie

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

Now if gays are allowed into the military, they will be inevitably be put in battlefield situations where donated blood from soldiers may be necessary to save the lives of wounded comrades. An HIV-infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.

If open homosexuals are allowed into the United States military, the Taliban won't need to plant dirty needles to infect our soldiers with HIV. Our own soldiers will take care of that for them.

128 comments

old comment by Cy

1) "Gay" does not equal "HIV-positive". Plenty of gay and lesbian individuals do not have HIV. Plenty of straight individuals do have HIV. This is an argument, though it doesn't really merit that title, against allowing HIV-positive people to serve.
2) There exist such things as blood screening, wearing medical bracelets to advise doctors etc. of one's medical situation, and simply saying "I can't donate my blood, I'm HIV-positive." I highly doubt that medical professionals, even on battlefields, would drain some blood from an unconscious soldier without bothering to check anything and stick it straight into another soldier. And if they were, the recipient would have far more to worry about from incompatible blood groups than from any sort of disease.

I also don't think HIV-positive soldiers are allowed anyway, though I'm not sure on that one, not being American.

old comment by DOS Et AL

@Kristine

Hate us? If so, you are more than free to Join your American hating friends in Tehran or Pyongyang. Those are cities by the way, They welcome an american hater like you. After saying what you sais, i firmly believe YOU deserve no better thsn being killed. DO me a favor and go to South Korea, and cross the DMZ its a great yourist attraction, and you'll love the experience of crossing the DMZ.

BTW theres a reason gays arent allowed to donate blood plasma and in certain places whole blood, its because they are high risk individuals, and those are medical personel speaking BTW. Never thought about what this guy said before, but its another great reason to keep gays out of the military. That and protecting straight ment right to not be oogled by promiscuous homos, whose only reason to join is because the sausage fest that is the military.

old comment by GigaGuess

Now if gays are allowed into the military...
You seem unfamiliar with DADT. There ARE evil gays in the military. They just have to lie about it.

...they will be inevitably be put in battlefield situations where donated blood from soldiers may be necessary to save the lives of wounded comrades.
INEVITABLY. Wow. Not plausible, or likely, but INEVITABLE. Jeez, no hyperbole here, now, is there?

An HIV-infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.
Whereas if the fellow soldier is straight, that is a 100% Guarantee that it is clean, right? Because since AIDS is a Fag Disease, no straight man EVER tested positive for HIV. Never, ever. It's attitudes like this that contribute to the rise of new HIV infections in Heterosexuals. Not to mention, do you seriously think they'd just hook a soldier up to another, and pump his blood straight in? I mean aside from this very reason, to prevent transmission of disease, you give someone the wrong blood type, the consequenses can be dire.

If open homosexuals are allowed into the United States military, the Taliban won't need to plant dirty needles to infect our soldiers with HIV. Our own soldiers will take care of that for them.
Whereas if they aren't allowed to be honest, then the HIV can't be transmitted? Fuck, I would think you'd like open homosexuals in the military, if this is your thought process.

old comment by

1. Gays already serve in the military; they just weren't allowed to say it before (to me that seems like a human rights violation since they weren't allowed to date, either).

2. You have to be tested before you can donate blood. Guess what they look for while running these blood tests?

3. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Taliban favour more overt tactics like suicide bombers and firing guns.

@Kristine: the majority of military personnel are not on the front lines. Most of them don't even fire a gun. And guess what? Some of them, like the engineers, help people in Afghanistan by doing things like helping to rebuild houses. Even if you don't like the soldiers, do keep in mind that they often have families at home who are currently under a lot of stress because they don't necessarily know if their loved ones are going to come home (whether because of death or severe mental trauma).

old comment by DOS Et AL

@ Kristine
"How did you get from disliking soldiers to hating America?"

They are one in the same. And if you believe any one that they kill over there is innocent at all, be it a woman or child,(whom are not targeted by the way) is innocent, then your are the idiot, and out of touch with the realities of the world and terrorism. You want the benefits america gives but dont support the people who defend it.

And yes i heard Pyongyang pays excellent, with even better benefits which include worshiping the american hating Great Leader, which would probably be a turn on for someone like you. He too would like to see american soldiers die. Same with the leaders in Tehran.

The only reason gays join the military is to look at guys; its like free porn for them. Its different with lesbos i suppose seing as there arent many women. Can you immagine taking a shower with open homos knowing they are probably oogling the straight guys there? Its disgusting. That they are more likely to have HIV (and that is a fact) is only one reason not to allow them or kick them out. So they cant join the miliotary to rip off uncle sam and get a free education? Boo hoo.

old comment by carmen sandiego

@DOS
The policy which forbids anyone who had ever had sex with a man who has had sex with men (meaning gay men, bi-men, and the female partners of bi-men) is actually under review.
In the U.S., AIDS is statistically more prevalent among homosexual males, but it still exists in many straight people.

For now, the FDA has chosen to support the ban on gay blood donors. However, they and the Red Cross will continue to look into the issue, as it is clearly discriminatory. The donated blood screening process is so thorough that it is not necessary to ban an entire demographic of non-infected individuals. We might as well ban all black people from donating, since they have a higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia.

old comment by DOS Et AL

@ Carmen Sandiego

"In the U.S., AIDS is statistically more prevalent among homosexual males, but it still exists in many straight people."

Only because of the law of large numbers. You have to look at proportion of populations. Of course there are more straight people with AIDS; there are more straight people in the US in total than Gays (for how long who knows. As a population proportion though a higher percentage of the gay population is infected with AIDS than the straight population.

If they change that policy even with good screening methods, were going to see much more AIDS being spread as a result of blood donation and transfusion. Goes for the millitary too.

"However, they and the Red Cross will continue to look into the issue, as it is clearly discriminatory"

No, its a medical fact and its a precautionary method, unless you want the US to end up like africa.

old comment by carmen sandiego

@ DOS
You really need to look at your facts before you go deciding transmission rates.

Less than 1% of all AIDS cases are attributed to contaminated blood or blood product transfusions, and the statistical risk of contamination is 1 in 2 million units. That's not very high.

SOURCE: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1389957-overview

Meanwhile, more than 1/3 of HIV cases in the U.S. are NOT from male-to-male sexual contact . . . that eliminates your "law of large numbers." (large numbers could be responsible for a handful of people, not an entire 36%).
Furthermore, in the rest of the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS is actually transmitted more through opposite-sex sexual contact and parent-to-child transmission, than through male-to-male sex.

SOURCE: http://www.avert.org/aids-statistics.htm

old comment by DOS Et AL

@ Kristine

"And yes i heard Pyongyang pays excellent,"

You seem to be very knowledgable in that area. Do you have an address I could mail for further info?

Yeah.

123 Death to Americans Way
Pyongyang, NORTH KOREA, 364557

Im told the great leader is expecting you; he wants to know the best way to kill american soldiers.

@carmen sandiego

Interesting. I still disagree with Gays being in the military. I would not want to shower with a guy i know could be getting off to nasty thoughts of me, or make a pass. If they are going to let them serve openly, at least have seperate restooms. They do it for man and women, the should go it for gays and straights. It wouldnt be so bad then.

old comment by DieAmericanPigs

To that idiot who keeps changing his title/nick/whatever, if you care about your soldiers (you call them soldiers, we call them murdering monsters) so much, then get them the fuck back to your country and keep them there. But hey, I guess 47% of the global resources are not enough for you greedy cocksuckers, are they. You just have to have it all, dontcha? All non-Americans dying of starvation, and all Americans dying of over-stuffing their fat faces; that's your "American Dream" that shall lead all mankind to extinction.

Anyhow, the way you took the comments from that "Kristine" person so personally, it is obvious that either you know a murdering monster or you are one (or maybe you're just some 13 year old troll, starved of parental attention, whatever, no one cares really about your life story, so don't bother going on about it), so I'll share a couple of interesting observations with you; since 9/11 I've seen Americans killing and Americans dying (you just can't miss it, it's all over the media), and my first observation is; they kill without honor and they die without it (killing for money makes you a petty brigand, dying for it just shows you are stupid), the second observation is that the rampant nationalism of a murdering monster's family and friends lasts about as long as the murdering monster him/herself; meaning as soon as that pig (or sow, if you may) gets put down during one of their looting raids, their family and friends go and join the anti-war crowd, chanting slogans like "no blood for oil" and whatnot. So yours might live now, but we'll talk once he/she/they die like the pigs they are, coming back to you in maybe 3 or 4 separate small bags.Then I'd like to see the level of your so-called patriotism.

old comment by Concerned Brit

Just to put forward a more sensible viewpoint of the Military (not any specific war, this is a different argument for another day), it is a unfortunate necessity of reality. So long as humans exist there will, in al probability, always be those who will take what others have by force, both at the individual and the national levels. If you wish to remain free and enjoy the freedoms that thus society offers, and if you wish this society to do the good that it does (e.g. scientific research that benefits all mankind, charitable work that helps those worse off than ourselves etc) then a military to defend that society from those who don't agree with it is required.

As John Stuart Mill succinctly put it "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

old comment by breakerslion

Perhaps one day, long after such strife mongering fantasy concepts as God and the afterlife are abandoned, we can lose the Jingoistic fantasy known as patriotism as well and all get along. The race might not live so long, and I certainly won't. I promise not to care after I'm dead. Meanwhile, governments will make back room deals and soldiers will be used as mercenaries by the powerful. We will be taught to hate "terrorists", but after all, what other tactics do the disenfranchised have at their disposal? All you redneck militias would last about 20 minutes against the US Air Force, and they wouldn't even have to try hard.

And as for you bitchers that think the US soldier is a monster, read a book about how war was conducted right up through WWII, and is still fought in places like the Congo. Reprisals and collateral damage against the civilian population was the norm. I'd like to see you try to teach a pissed-off Tuareg manners. He'd take your yapping head off and rightly conclude he'd done the world a favor. To call humans pigs is to insult the pigs. We can all do better.

As for the spurious argument about HIV that started this love fest, it has no basis in reality and the poster is an addle-brained dipshit.

old comment by dionysus

The only reason gays join the military is to look at guys; its like free porn for them.

Yes, because getting free porn (free porn which will beat the snot out of you if you stare at it too long) is worth getting your arms and legs blown off over. It's not like there's some sort of series of tubes out there where you can get all the porn you could ever want without having to risk getting shot. I'm sure if such a superhighway of information, if you will, existed it could revolutionize the world.

Its different with lesbos i suppose seing as there arent many women.

Nonsense! In fact, that island is historically famous for having lots of women.

Can you immagine taking a shower with open homos knowing they are probably oogling the straight guys there?

Personally I don't like to fantasize about those things but hey, whatever turns you on.

Its disgusting.

Unfortunately for you "I think it's icky" is not a valid argument.

That they are more likely to have HIV (and that is a fact) is only one reason not to allow them or kick them out.

If they have HIV they probably wouldn't be allowed in the military in the first place.

So they cant join the miliotary to rip off uncle sam and get a free education?

Fuck you, bigot. If a straight man can "rip off Uncle Sam for an education" why can't a gay man? Oh, right, because you think they're icky. Well, I think YOU are absolutely revolting and by that logic you shouldn't get a damn thing. Hell, I'll even claim it's against my religion for bigots like you to get anything, which means I'll need to start a new religion.

old comment by DOS Et AL

@ Berskil...
"we can lose the Jingoistic fantasy known as patriotism as well and all get along"

Yes, under the iron jack boot of a foreign power either from the middle east or China. No patriotism means no ability or desire to defend a nation, and im sorry to say, but there will always be some one, some nation out there that will use violence even if no one else does, to believe other wise makes you as naive moron.

@ Dionysus
"You're both delusional if you think there aren't gays in the military already"

Dont put words in my mouth, i already know there are Gays in the military. I dont think they should serve at all, openly or closeted, and every one found should be kicked out. Period end of discussion, because that is my opinion on the issue, and im not changing it, so dont bother.

"You mean with the Catholic Church..."

Silly me, i thought we were better than animals, and actually could have self restraint..but i guess its to hard so dont even bother right, just use a condom, which bTW isnt 100% effective at blocking aids, have sex with 100 other people. Yeah great alternative.

"If a straight man can "rip off Uncle Sam for an education" why can't a gay man?"

Im actually against both straight and gays usuing the military to get a free ride rather than joining for patriotic reasons.

Oh and Fuck you too. Insults are not just one sided.

old comment by Marc

@#1168163

This seems like an excellent reason to repeal DADT. Now that gays have to pretend to be straight, you can't differentiate straight from gay. If DADT was repealed, red blooded soldier check off some box that says "I ain't want no homo blood." We'd know who the gays are and they wouldn't get their blood.

Reality doesn't work that way. For the same reason that a soldier can't already say "I ain't want no nigger/spic/whatever blood." Blood is blood, as far as doctors are concerned. When they get it from the donor, it is checked for various diseases, and if there are none, then it is put into storage for future use. Neither the donor, the doctor, nor the recipients know who is getting what from whom.

old comment by dionysus

Dont put words in my mouth, i already know there are Gays in the military. I dont think they should serve at all, openly or closeted, and every one found should be kicked out.

And just how the fuck are you intending on finding out which ones are closeted? You know there isn't actually such a thing as gaydar. All that's going to happen is that your little homosexual witch hunt is going to destroy our military's morale and instill a bunch of needless internal paranoia; just like the Salem witch hunts.

Period end of discussion, because that is my opinion on the issue, and im not changing it, so dont bother.

Yeah, we know all about your dogmatic way of thinking. I'm just relieved that you're not repeating the same shit over and over again as usual.

Who said it was 100% effective? But it certainly seems to be statistically more effective than abstinence only. Facts are facts and you can choose to bury your head in the sand all you want, that doesn't change the facts. But go right ahead, take the blue pill.

Im actually against both straight and gays usuing the military to get a free ride rather than joining for patriotic reasons.

What? Consistency from DOS? I don't believe it! But, what if a gay man is joining the military for patriotic reasons? Oh crap, I think I just blew DOS's mind.

Oh and Fuck you too.

Aw, and here I thought you didn't care about me.

old comment by Gloria

Here is what I find funny about this: men who have had sex with other men are not allowed to donate blood. However, not everyone wants to admit they've had gay sex, so the blood banks bend over backwards to avoid forcing people to choose between outing themselves, and donating high-risk blood. They give you several chances to stop the donation (and there are lots of excuses therefor,) and you also have the option of donating, but tagging your blood to be thrown out instead of used. They put a lot of effort into reducing people's motivation to lie about their level of risk.

If a soldier is called upon to donate blood in the field (speaking of which, that must be some emergency! They don't have any stored blood? Sure it doesn't keep that well, but I would think medical supplies are one of those things that people would logically place some logistical priority on in combat zones.) and he had engaged in sex with another male recently, he has huge motivation to lie and donate his high-risk blood anyway, because of DADT. Even suspicion of being gay could seriously screw up his military career. If he were allowed to serve openly, he wouldn't have as much reason to lie (though thanks to people like DOS he's still have quite a bit) and thus the other soldiers would be safer. Your argument defeats itself.

@Kat

do you have specific examples of blatant ignorance that were bothing you, or is it just the blind generalizations?

@ John

Do you mind if I use that the next time I have one of these conversations? Because it's pretty great.

old comment by some guy

I'd like to comment on the nationalism/patriotism thing: It's just racism with flags. I'd much rather see people fight over ideas and what not rather than the "knowledge" that they're better than anyone else because you were born on a specific patch of land because guess what, the guy you're trying to enforce that onto thinks exactly the same.

That said I don't have anything against soldiers on either side, only the ideas that motivate them. And I absolutely don't have anything against those people in Iraq or Afghanistan most of whom are just fighting to keep foreign oppressors out of their country.

Hell, if anyone tried to come to my country to set up a puppet govt. in order to exploit us I'd be right there trying to stop them. But not because of patriotism or nationalism but because of "those motherfuckers don't have the right to come here and try to control/exploit me so i'll give them hell and send them back in coffins or die trying"ism

old comment by J.E.

"I'd like to comment on the nationalism/patriotism thing: It's just racism with flags. I'd much rather see people fight over ideas and what not rather than the "knowledge" that they're better than anyone else because you were born on a specific patch of land because guess what, the guy you're trying to enforce that onto thinks exactly the same."

Very well said "some guy". I would think that a large majority of the regulars here would agree that "religion" is but a leash with which the men of clergy hope to control the masses. "Patriotism" (which is essentially "territorial-ism" coated with the sweet semantic sugar) is a very similar control device employed by the politicians. Although in some ways it works better because of a far more tangible perceived threat.

old comment by breakerslion

@DOOS

"Silly me, i thought we were better than animals, and actually could have self restraint."

We are animals. Even you are of higher intelligence than a vegetable. Many animals show better restraint as a species when it comes to killing each other than humans do. 10,000 years of superstition and religious bullshitting has only served to allow the few at the top of the pyramid to direct the mayhem. Don't talk to me about jack boots. The US has been taken in that direction by the insanely bigoted far right at regular intervals. Oppression has many forms, not all overtly brutal. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended, nor is it what my ancestors hoped for when they tried to escape the veneer of civilization in Europe. Between the government, the corporations, and the insurance companies, I'm practically a serf. My relatively high standard of living only serves to make me a valued consumer. China already owns our ass by the way, and they didn't need to fire a shot. We were sold out. We are every bit as susceptible to financial collapse as was the Soviet Union.

old comment by tranz2deep

Bryan, you stupid, stupid man.

Heterosexuals can and do get HIV, and some of them are like as not in service.

Furthermore, if "don't ask, don't tell" secrecy extends to medical records, then even if your specious fear-driven drivel was correct, the non-open homosexuals would be stuck donating blood to maintain the facade!

So, in order:
1) Straights and non-combatants donating blood may have HIV and some of it might get past filters.

2) Filters and tests exist to prevent HIV contamination of all donated blood, period.

3) HIV doesn't distinguish open or hidden homosexuality any more than it does one being straight or gay in the first place!

The bottom line is you're a fundie fearmonger with no grasp of basic biology OR virology.

Go back under your rock!

old comment by steelcobra

Since apparently no one knows this from reading through these comments, I'll fill you in on how the Army handles things.

A: An HIV test is part of the physical performed before and after every deployment, along with a Tuberculosis test afterwards.

B: Personnel who do test positive are not discharged automatically.

C: They are, however, barred from deployment/overseas service and are concentrated at certain bases, such as FT Gordon, so that they get proper medical care from specialists. And are fully covered by the VA when they do complete contract.

I have heard nothing but ignorance posted in this thread so far, and it's a disservice to the reality and reason we are all supposed to look to and uphold.

old comment by steelcobra

Since apparently no one knows this from reading through these comments, I'll fill you in on how the Army handles things.

A: An HIV test is part of the physical performed before and after every deployment, along with a Tuberculosis test afterwards.

B: Personnel who do test positive are not discharged automatically.

I have heard nothing but ignorance posted in this thread so far, and it's a disservice to the reality and reason we are all supposed to look to and uphold.

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

128 comments

Confused?