Comments on: Family Research Council: Military at Greater Risk of HIV if DADT is Repealed

By: Amii

Amii — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:07:08 +0000

“…and an increased risk in pyschological disorders.”

What?! I’d like to see the proof of that as well.

On the other hand, I can see where having to lie to your fellow soldiers and superiors every minute of every day could lead to psychological disorders.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:37:32 +0000

Since the lesbian infection rate is nil, just legalize lesbian soldiers. (following that “logic.”)

By: Tommy

Tommy — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:03:38 +0000

Something bizarre is going on. As we all know, anyone who has engaged in male/male sex even one time since 1977 is totally banned by the FDA for donating blood. Yet we are told that the military blood supply is the most critical of all (combat zone trauma transfusions, etc).

Enter Lt Matt Sanchez who was a gay porn actor and engaged in almost every conceivable male/male sex act imaginable. Yet he claims to have divulged this to his recruiters and was enlisted in the Marines no problem. Now Sanchez is an extreme anti-gay activist and says repealing DADT will destroy the military. What the hell is wrong with this picture?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:57:10 +0000

Hmmm. Lifting this ban only changes whether those who serve can be open about it. So it would seem, according to Mr. LaButta’s argument, that coming out of closet gives one HIV.

I’ve heard the nonsense about mosquitos and dinnerware, but this is a new one.

By: Erin

Erin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:29:23 +0000

I believe they refuse recruits who test positive for diseases or are found to have medical issues. Two simple facts render their argument invalid and irrelevant: 1. Everyone is tested prior to entering the military, then retested, so I don’t know how soldiers being openly gay instead of closeted gay is going to change the fact that noone who has HIV/AIDS can enter in the first place. 2. Even if soldiers weren’t checked or there’s the possibilty for error, heterosexuals can be affected by all the factors they listed. This is just an effort to put an ugly, distorted face on the entire LGBT population in order to keep the irrational fears alive long enough that people continue to deny us fair treatment under the law and in our workplaces and government positions.

By: Jim in MA

Jim in MA — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:21:18 +0000

What about all the straight STDs?
syphilis, gonorhea, chlamidia, herpes, and the list goes on…
Does the military refuse recruits with any of these diseases?

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:38:02 +0000

Black American male and female heterosexuals, like their African continent counterparts represent a very high risk group. There are a lot of black men and women in the military.

Lesbians are the lowest risk group, of course.

It’s getting REAL old that so much misinformation is being spread about the vectors of disease and trying to use that misinformation as a means of discrimination.

When will someone challenge them on that misinformation in the strongest way possible?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:52 +0000

Dr Stall has previously complained that these right-wing “family”/hate groups are misrepresenting his work:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2009/06/3207/

By: Neon Genesis

Neon Genesis — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:45:19 +0000

I still don’t get why the Family Research Council isn’t classified as a hate group already.