Congress to tackle DADT this year in compromise bill

[eion]

It is not being gay that carries a higher risk of contracting an STD, it is engaging in Anal Sex. That point I concede. The reason gay men have a higher statistical risk of an STD is because we don’t have fucking vaginas. A heterosexual who engaged solely in anal intercourse would be at the same risk. If it were truly behavior based, they would ban anyone who had had anal sex. They don't. I can be a heterosexual and have multiple unprotected partners, and so long as none of them are prostitutes, I can donate.

If I've been with the same man since 1979, I can't.

Does that really make any fucking sense?

And you're wrong. The ban isn't medical, it's political. It is the same reason we used to have a white blood supply, and a black blood supply. If it really is medical, then aren’t Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden (Which just lifted its permanent ban), and others exposing their populations to a terrible risk? Unconscionable Bastards!

There is also no test for CJD, as far as I know, that can be run on blood. In the early days, I could almost understand the ban beyond fear. It was made at a time when we couldn't test blood for HIV easily, and there were many cases of HIV contraction via blood transfusion. But the law makes no fucking sense now, and what's worse is the FDA has the authority right now to change it, and despite every medical reason to do so, the still haven't.

As for lesbians, well America has never had as big a problem with two girls hooking up.

[eion]

That's not the point of them. The military doesn't give a rat's ass about whether or not a soldier or sailor or Marine does these things. In fact, I mentioned Australian brothels due to the fact that after a US Fleet docks in someplace like Sydney, they shut down for a week to recover from all the American sailors who are all but told to go out there and get laid. They are still on the books, however, because occasionally there is a jackass that really needs charged with SOMETHING because they can't quite get him for what he really did. It's the Al Capone principle, they put him away on a single count of tax evasion because they couldn't nail him for the all the things that he was oh so guilty of doing. So they maintain those things in the UCMJ for special occasions, but really otherwise couldn't care what their soldiers do with their dingles, just so long as the sheep they are buggering is a female sheep.

That may be how the military sees Article 125 (Sodomy) but many outside the military have used it as a justification for maintaining DADT, even after a military court ruled that Lawrence v. Texas applies to Article 125, even if in a limited extent.

And isn't that what Article 134 (Also known as the Devil's Article) is for?

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

In other words, if you misbehave, and we don't have a rule against it, we can still punish you if we really want to.

[Gil Hamilton]

It is not being gay that carries a higher risk of contracting an STD, it is engaging in Anal Sex. That point I concede. The reason gay men have a higher statistical risk of an STD is because we don’t have fucking vaginas. A heterosexual who engaged solely in anal intercourse would be at the same risk. If it were truly behavior based, they would ban anyone who had had anal sex. They don't. I can be a heterosexual and have multiple unprotected partners, and so long as none of them are prostitutes, I can donate.

If I've been with the same man since 1979, I can't.

Does that really make any fucking sense?

And you're wrong. The ban isn't medical, it's political. It is the same reason we used to have a white blood supply, and a black blood supply. If it really is medical, then aren’t Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden (Which just lifted its permanent ban), and others exposing their populations to a terrible risk? Unconscionable Bastards!

Then it will likely go away.

However, statistics are what they are. Particularly since the 70s, no matter WHAT behaviors they engage in, homosexual men do have a higher incidence of blood borne pathogens than heterosexual men, while women of either orientation have lower than both. They could to an invasive survey of everyone who comes to donate's sexual habits to determine whether or not they've engaged in high risk behavior. They could also ask a specific survey about people's trip to South Africa to determine where they've been and what they've been exposed to and crunch numbers to determine whether not in their specific instance they should or should not be allowed to donate blood.

That very quickly becomes impractical. There is no way to perform a comprehensive survey to determine whether or not the person is likely to have Hepetitis or something. So, it protect the blood supply, they note groups that statistically have a much higher than usual incidence of bloodborne illness or have the possibility of being exposed to a bloodborne illness.

This is completely medical, not political. You are conflating it to be something it isn't. You refer to the separation of blood supplies in the middle of the last century, fine, but those have been outlawed, rightfully. There is one supply now. Note, gay men aren't banned from RECEIVING full access to that supply, only donating. Were gay men excluded from the system, they wouldn't have access to that blood supply either. No, gay men have full access to the product of the blood banks, they just statistically fall into a category that is high risk enough that they can't donate, just like dozens of other groups.

There is also no test for CJD, as far as I know, that can be run on blood. In the early days, I could almost understand the ban beyond fear. It was made at a time when we couldn't test blood for HIV easily, and there were many cases of HIV contraction via blood transfusion. But the law makes no fucking sense now, and what's worse is the FDA has the authority right now to change it, and despite every medical reason to do so, the still haven't.

They test every single sample that they take, no matter what. The reason they have the survey is because mistakes get made. It takes exactly ONE incidence of someone getting hepetitis from a blood transfusion from a source where there was an error for them to have to pitch the ENTIRE blood supply to assure that people aren't receiving tainted blood. The survey that allows them to ban high risk groups from donating is another layer in the system to assure the entire supply is safe. It certainly isn't a plot to prevent gay men's cooties from polluting out precious fluids.

As for lesbians, well America has never had as big a problem with two girls hooking up.

Were it political, they'd be banned as well, so don't play that card. I'll let you fight it out with the gay girls on the board if you want to claim that gay men are getting it worse than gay women in America.

This isn't a ban on homosexuals from donating blood. Gay men have, since the 70s, been a high risk group for entirely valid medical reasons. You should know full well the serious problem with STDs that swept through gay men in the 70s and 80s, between general cultural promiscuity of the time and extensive drug use that existed in many subcultures of the time. That's history, now, but the rules remain until the CDC and FDA can show that the problems of the past have leveled out. That other countries are showing it and removing gay men from the high risk group is a good start, but the ultimate priority is a safe blood supply. What would be political would be removing a high risk group from the list for any reason other than valid medical statistics.

[Knife]

You're assuming that throwing shit against the wall only needs one lump of pooh. Why charge a person with the main charge and Article 134 if you can charge them with the main charge, conduct unbecoming, and sodomy (and really anything else they can put on their without a judge laughing).

[eion]

Then it will likely go away.

You make it sound like a cold. Nothing gets done in politics without fighting the inertia of the status quo. And in the history of the gay rights movement (and this has held true for every equality movement), no right has ever been given. They have always been fought long and hard for and taken with much struggle.

However, statistics are what they are. Particularly since the 70s, no matter WHAT behaviors they engage in, homosexual men do have a higher incidence of blood borne pathogens than heterosexual men, while women of either orientation have lower than both. They could to an invasive survey of everyone who comes to donate's sexual habits to determine whether or not they've engaged in high risk behavior. They could also ask a specific survey about people's trip to South Africa to determine where they've been and what they've been exposed to and crunch numbers to determine whether not in their specific instance they should or should not be allowed to donate blood.

Statistics may not lie, but the statisticians do, all too often.

I have no problem with a temporary deferment. the FDA will tell you that no one is every "banned" from donating, they are merely deferred. I have no problem with a 3 or 6 month deferment from donation. What I have a problem with is the permanent ban even if the person has only ever had one occasion of gay sex. I get my HIV/STD test every 6 months like clockwork, and so do all my gay friends. We use protection EVERY time except those of us who are in monogamous relationships (and then only after 6 months and at least two clean tests). Want to know how the stats for my straight friends? 1's had a baby because he didn't glove up, 1's got genital warts, and 2 have had abortions, and all of them can donate. Who do you think is more serious about their sexual safety? The survey already takes me 3 - 5 minutes to fill out (Because I read the whole thing each time), and then another 2 minutes for the RN to go over it with me; if it means more donations (and it will), what's an extra minute? Just change the MSM question to, "Have you had more than one sexual partner in the last X months who you have engaged in any of the following behaviors with?" And then list your high risk sexual behaviors. This would probably still disqualify me from donating, but it would allow many others to do so, and I might even follow the ban this time.

This is completely medical, not political. You are conflating it to be something it isn't. You refer to the separation of blood supplies in the middle of the last century, fine, but those have been outlawed, rightfully. There is one supply now. Note, gay men aren't banned from RECEIVING full access to that supply, only donating. Were gay men excluded from the system, they wouldn't have access to that blood supply either. No, gay men have full access to the product of the blood banks, they just statistically fall into a category that is high risk enough that they can't donate, just like dozens of other groups.

Maybe I'm just a little pissed at being lumped into the same category as intravenous drug users and prostitutes, despite the fact that my sexual habits are safer than almost all my straight friends. Maybe I'm feeling guilty for doing what I see as my civic duty every 8 weeks and having to lie every single time. But then I get the little card that says they gave my blood to someone, and I feel much better. And you better believe some people are politically motivated from keeping gay men from donating blood.

There is also no test for CJD, as far as I know, that can be run on blood. In the early days, I could almost understand the ban beyond fear. It was made at a time when we couldn't test blood for HIV easily, and there were many cases of HIV contraction via blood transfusion. But the law makes no fucking sense now, and what's worse is the FDA has the authority right now to change it, and despite every medical reason to do so, the still haven't.

They test every single sample that they take, no matter what. The reason they have the survey is because mistakes get made. It takes exactly ONE incidence of someone getting hepetitis from a blood transfusion from a source where there was an error for them to have to pitch the ENTIRE blood supply to assure that people aren't receiving tainted blood. The survey that allows them to ban high risk groups from donating is another layer in the system to assure the entire supply is safe. It certainly isn't a plot to prevent gay men's cooties from polluting out precious fluids.

If I remember correctly, a study done by the Red Cross estimated that opening up donation to MSM would result in one additional HIV transfusion infection every 30 years, a statistical zero if I ever saw one. And this was without any temporary deferment. Balance that against all the people whose lives could be saved by the extra blood in the supply.

As for lesbians, well America has never had as big a problem with two girls hooking up.

Were it political, they'd be banned as well, so don't play that card. I'll let you fight it out with the gay girls on the board if you want to claim that gay men are getting it worse than gay women in America.

Too late, I played it. I'm sure I'll catch hell, and I'm not looking to reenact that particular civil war. We could go around and around about the effects of positive discrimination versus negative discrimination, and I could bring up the simple pop-culture timeline that shows lesbians are more often portrayed (and portrayed positively) in media, and they would counter with lipstick lesbianism and LUGS and it would go on and on. The point is people are dying right now that don' have to, and I think the infinitesimally increased risk from HIV infection is worth it.

This isn't a ban on homosexuals from donating blood. Gay men have, since the 70s, been a high risk group for entirely valid medical reasons. You should know full well the serious problem with STDs that swept through gay men in the 70s and 80s, between general cultural promiscuity of the time and extensive drug use that existed in many subcultures of the time. That's history, now, but the rules remain until the CDC and FDA can show that the problems of the past have leveled out. That other countries are showing it and removing gay men from the high risk group is a good start, but the ultimate priority is a safe blood supply. What would be political would be removing a high risk group from the list for any reason other than valid medical statistics.

No need to educate me about my culture's history with STDs. Who's at greatest statistical risk now for HIV infection in the U.S. after gay men? Black Men and Black Women, and Black men have some of the lowest condom use rates amongst the entire population. You can't ban people based on statistics. It isn't fair to the donors or the blood supply. You have to target behavior. It was true for a time that MSM were a substantial risk to the blood supply, but that no longer appears to be the case. And thinking that the FDA will just wake up one day and realize the ban is no longer required is foolish. You have to push them. That's why it's a dragon of institutionalized homophobia, even if it once represented a REAL threat, it no longer does.

[eion]

You're assuming that throwing shit against the wall only needs one lump of pooh. Why charge a person with the main charge and Article 134 if you can charge them with the main charge, conduct unbecoming, and sodomy (and really anything else they can put on their without a judge laughing).

You can throw shit and make it stick on a few miscreants without getting the whole military dirty. Do you have any cases to cite that used sodomy charges against service-members who engaged in heterosexual acts with a prostitute? The stigma of "Sodomy" being used to force a plea-bargain is just one more reason to remove it from the UCMJ. The Sodomy statute does more harm than good. It also applies to BJs and anal-sex for heterosexual service-members too, but I wonder how often that's been employed against a private who got a BJ from his girlfriend off base and got caught, or for that matter against officers who get one from their wives on base.

[Gil Hamilton]

You make it sound like a cold. Nothing gets done in politics without fighting the inertia of the status quo. And in the history of the gay rights movement (and this has held true for every equality movement), no right has ever been given. They have always been fought long and hard for and taken with much struggle.

Granted, but consider that all things move at the speed of government, where it can take up to ten years to accomplish procedural changes that everyone in the process agrees with.

Statistics may not lie, but the statisticians do, all too often.

Wait, are you claiming that the CDC and FDA are deliberately lying to keep gay men (not even all gay people) from donating blood?

I have no problem with a temporary deferment. the FDA will tell you that no one is every "banned" from donating, they are merely deferred. I have no problem with a 3 or 6 month deferment from donation. What I have a problem with is the permanent ban even if the person has only ever had one occasion of gay sex. I get my HIV/STD test every 6 months like clockwork, and so do all my gay friends. We use protection EVERY time except those of us who are in monogamous relationships (and then only after 6 months and at least two clean tests). Want to know how the stats for my straight friends? 1's had a baby because he didn't glove up, 1's got genital warts, and 2 have had abortions, and all of them can donate. Who do you think is more serious about their sexual safety? The survey already takes me 3 - 5 minutes to fill out (Because I read the whole thing each time), and then another 2 minutes for the RN to go over it with me; if it means more donations (and it will), what's an extra minute? Just change the MSM question to, "Have you had more than one sexual partner in the last X months who you have engaged in any of the following behaviors with?" And then list your high risk sexual behaviors. This would probably still disqualify me from donating, but it would allow many others to do so, and I might even follow the ban this time.

Except that a comprehensive individual survey is more time consuming that you make it sound and frankly would encourage more people to lie, not less. I grant you that straight people are pretty messed up too, but unless you are accusing hospitals, medical centers, and the CDC of outright fraud, statistically speaking gay men still are at much greater risk than straight men, and women of either orientation than both.

How old are you, eion? I was born in 1982, which is about the youngest you can be to remember when Reagan was president and when AIDS was starting to get attention. If you are old enough, cast your brain back to how HIV was viewed back in and how scared everyone was. They had stopped calling it GRIDS by this point, but what they had was a disease for which there was absolutely no treatment whatsoever, 100% lethal, and they weren't even sure how exactly it transmitted. The policy that you refer to as a "dragon" of discrimination alongside gays not being allowed to serve in the military existed because what was possibly the scariest disease since polio was definitely spreading and people were starting to die from transfusions from blood banks (historic sci-fi note: Isaac Asimov died of AIDS due to such a transfusion). They only thing they COULD do was look at the high risk groups and ban them from donating blood, which very much included gay men at the time.

Maybe I'm just a little pissed at being lumped into the same category as intravenous drug users and prostitutes, despite the fact that my sexual habits are safer than almost all my straight friends. Maybe I'm feeling guilty for doing what I see as my civic duty every 8 weeks and having to lie every single time. But then I get the little card that says they gave my blood to someone, and I feel much better.

You are also getting lumped into the same category as women who were pregnant in recent history, people who've taken certain medication in the last few years, and frankly I'm not sure I'm allowed to give blood since I was even browsing Cameroon's FIFA page. It may not be fair to YOU, but whether it is fair in general is the question.

And you better believe some people are politically motivated from keeping gay men from donating blood.

I never said that there weren't, but the people who are afraid of contaminating us with the Gay Cooties aren't the reason gay men can't give blood. You must concede that the origin of that ban is legitimate and valid policy making in the 80s when gay men were in MUCH greater risk of having a bloodborne pathogen.

If I remember correctly, a study done by the Red Cross estimated that opening up donation to MSM would result in one additional HIV transfusion infection every 30 years, a statistical zero if I ever saw one. And this was without any temporary deferment. Balance that against all the people whose lives could be saved by the extra blood in the supply.

Good, appeal then. However, remember the current ban isn't because they are out to get you specifically.

Too late, I played it. I'm sure I'll catch hell, and I'm not looking to reenact that particular civil war. We could go around and around about the effects of positive discrimination versus negative discrimination, and I could bring up the simple pop-culture timeline that shows lesbians are more often portrayed (and portrayed positively) in media, and they would counter with lipstick lesbianism and LUGS and it would go on and on. The point is people are dying right now that don' have to, and I think the infinitesimally increased risk from HIV infection is worth it.

Fine, but those people who are afraid of the Gay Cooties don't discriminate in their discrimination. If they were banning you because you were gay and not in a high risk group, lesbians would be banned too. They are not. Trying to go "Well, society likes them better" isn't really valid.

No need to educate me about my culture's history with STDs. Who's at greatest statistical risk now for HIV infection in the U.S. after gay men? Black Men and Black Women, and Black men have some of the lowest condom use rates amongst the entire population. You can't ban people based on statistics. It isn't fair to the donors or the blood supply. You have to target behavior. It was true for a time that MSM were a substantial risk to the blood supply, but that no longer appears to be the case. And thinking that the FDA will just wake up one day and realize the ban is no longer required is foolish. You have to push them. That's why it's a dragon of institutionalized homophobia, even if it once represented a REAL threat, it no longer does.

Except that it certainly isn't institutionalized homophobia. It has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with discriminating against people because they are gay. We've been through this. If it were instituationalized homophobia, gay women would be banned too. If gay men in the 80s had the same rate of bloodborne pathogens as straight men, then there would be no ban today. If you want to complain about governmental inertia, I certainly sympathize. If there is no medical reason NOW in 2010 for gay men to not be able to donate blood, by all means present the case and push for it. I'll support you 100%. However, you shouldn't point fingers and make accusation of bigotry at legitimate policy, since it distracts from real issues.

Governmental policy inertia always requires shoving, I grant. We had a speaker who was involved in policy about nuclear power. In the 90s they came up with some changes for OSHA to implement that were completely procedural and everyone approved of and the handshaking/stamping process to go from when it was proposed to when it was implemented was ten years. Even a change with no resistance takes a while.

[Medic]

You're assuming that throwing shit against the wall only needs one lump of pooh. Why charge a person with the main charge and Article 134 if you can charge them with the main charge, conduct unbecoming, and sodomy (and really anything else they can put on their without a judge laughing).

You can throw shit and make it stick on a few miscreants without getting the whole military dirty. Do you have any cases to cite that used sodomy charges against service-members who engaged in heterosexual acts with a prostitute? The stigma of "Sodomy" being used to force a plea-bargain is just one more reason to remove it from the UCMJ. The Sodomy statute does more harm than good. It also applies to BJs and anal-sex for heterosexual service-members too, but I wonder how often that's been employed against a private who got a BJ from his girlfriend off base and got caught, or for that matter against officers who get one from their wives on base.

This is mostly an aside to the debate but amusingly I have seen it. (hetero, bj, cellphone picture. Drama, it's what kids these days are made of. Alcohol was a contributing factor )

Long story short, if you're otherwise a shitbag or problem child, if you just so happen to get your cellphone confiscated by the MP's for some reason with damning pictures, you can get UCMJ thrown at you. In this instance it was a shortcut to chapter proceedings, i.e., they wanted to kick him out but besides sodomy he hadn't done anything worthy of UCMJ.

But yeah, it is rare. I don't expect to see that again.

[eion]

Nothing gets done in politics without fighting the inertia of the status quo. And in the history of the gay rights movement (and this has held true for every equality movement), no right has ever been given.

Granted, but consider that all things move at the speed of government, where it can take up to ten years to accomplish procedural changes that everyone in the process agrees with.

Agreed, but it takes even longer with no one pushing.

Statistics may not lie, but the statisticians do, all too often.

Wait, are you claiming that the CDC and FDA are deliberately lying to keep gay men (not even all gay people) from donating blood?

My paranoia isn't that extreme, but my level of trust when it comes to government AIDS policy is very low. Much as we like to think of the CDC and FDA as apolitical, they are not. I think the CDC & FDA are terrified beyond reason of another Ryan White, despite that fact that our testing ability and blood security procedures are worlds apart from the what they were in 1984. I think a once-useful policy is being kept around not out of a genuine need, but as a political safeguard.

I have no problem with a temporary deferment. the FDA will tell you that no one is every "banned" from donating, they are merely deferred. I have no problem with a 3 or 6 month deferment from donation. What I have a problem with is the permanent ban even if the person has only ever had one occasion of gay sex. I get my HIV/STD test every 6 months like clockwork, and so do all my gay friends. We use protection EVERY time except those of us who are in monogamous relationships (and then only after 6 months and at least two clean tests). Want to know how the stats for my straight friends? 1's had a baby because he didn't glove up, 1's got genital warts, and 2 have had abortions, and all of them can donate. Who do you think is more serious about their sexual safety? The survey already takes me 3 - 5 minutes to fill out (Because I read the whole thing each time), and then another 2 minutes for the RN to go over it with me; if it means more donations (and it will), what's an extra minute? Just change the MSM question to, "Have you had more than one sexual partner in the last X months who you have engaged in any of the following behaviors with?" And then list your high risk sexual behaviors. This would probably still disqualify me from donating, but it would allow many others to do so, and I might even follow the ban this time.

Except that a comprehensive individual survey is more time consuming that you make it sound and frankly would encourage more people to lie, not less. I grant you that straight people are pretty messed up too, but unless you are accusing hospitals, medical centers, and the CDC of outright fraud, statistically speaking gay men still are at much greater risk than straight men, and women of either orientation than both.

I think the extra donors would more than make up for the extra 10 – 30 seconds per survey. I think forcing straight people to confront their risky sexual behaviors also has a benefit in that it might actually make them stop acting so riskily and further increase the available blood donor supply.

How old are you, eion? I was born in 1982, which is about the youngest you can be to remember when Reagan was president and when AIDS was starting to get attention. If you are old enough, cast your brain back to how HIV was viewed back in and how scared everyone was. They had stopped calling it GRIDS by this point, but what they had was a disease for which there was absolutely no treatment whatsoever, 100% lethal, and they weren't even sure how exactly it transmitted. The policy that you refer to as a "dragon" of discrimination alongside gays not being allowed to serve in the military existed because what was possibly the scariest disease since polio was definitely spreading and people were starting to die from transfusions from blood banks (historic sci-fi note: Isaac Asimov died of AIDS due to such a transfusion). They only thing they COULD do was look at the high risk groups and ban them from donating blood, which very much included gay men at the time.

25. I’ve had to replace firsthand experience with research and talking to people who lived through it. My dear friend E. lost a partner to AIDS and yet somehow made it out uninfected. I cannot imagine the terror of that unknown, unseeable, unkillable monster potentially ridding along the shoulders of those you loved. At the time, I agree, the only thing that could be done was to look at high-risk groups and ban them. That is not the case now. We can be more exacting. It did not start a dragon, and like so many hellish beasts it began with the best of intentions. The policy of banning MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) from donating if they have had ANY sexual encounter with a man since 1979 is so often used to prove that gay men are somehow less than straight men. It is, if I remember correctly, one of only 3 behaviors (the other two being intravenous drug use, and utilizing or being a prostitute) that earns you such a permanent ban. Again, I have no problem with a temporary ban, but to say that blowing one guy 30 years ago forever taints my blood is just wrong, we can be more discriminating.

Maybe I'm just a little pissed at being lumped into the same category as intravenous drug users and prostitutes, despite the fact that my sexual habits are safer than almost all my straight friends. Maybe I'm feeling guilty for doing what I see as my civic duty every 8 weeks and having to lie every single time. But then I get the little card that says they gave my blood to someone, and I feel much better.

You are also getting lumped into the same category as women who were pregnant in recent history, people who've taken certain medication in the last few years, and frankly I'm not sure I'm allowed to give blood since I was even browsing Cameroon's FIFA page. It may not be fair to YOU, but whether it is fair in general is the question.

Those groups you listed are temporarily deferred from donating for what are legitimate health concerns either to themselves or the blood recipient. I am BANNED, or at least ought to be.

When I went to my first blood drive, I didn’t make it past the survey because my time in Europe was too great. I either misunderstood the question, or they have since changed the time limits because I now qualify in that regard, but it is the biggest sticking point every single time. The nurse will double check her math 2 or 3 times just to be sure I wasn’t in Germany longer than the allotted period. No one questions my answer to the MSM question. Either I’m a great liar, or the nurses realize how idiotic it is too.

It’s also important to remember that at the time the policy was enacted, you must also remember that sodomy was still illegal in most places. How much that weighed on the FDA’s decision is unknown.

I never said that there weren't [People who are pol politically motivated from keeping gay men from donating blood], but the people who are afraid of contaminating us with the Gay Cooties aren't the reason gay men can't give blood. You must concede that the origin of that ban is legitimate and valid policy making in the 80s when gay men were in MUCH greater risk of having a bloodborne pathogen.

Granted, but the question of whether the ban WAS necessary is different from the question of whether it IS necessary.

According to Merck, the risk of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 2,000,000. Again, if I remember correctly, according the Red Cross, the increased risk if the MSM question is outright removed is an additional HIV infection via blood transfusion once every 32 years.

Also according to the Red Cross there are 14 million blood donations a year, which means on average 7 people are infected with HIV via blood transfusion each year, which is essentially statistically insignificant.

There has been some question as to whether the Red Cross model is accurate (it is after all not an empirical study, but a statistical model), so let’s assume they are off by a factor of 32, and there is one additional HIV infection via blood transfusion each year. So instead of 7 people being infected there will be 8.

Again, balance that against the hundreds, thousands, maybe tens of thousands who will be saved by the increased blood supply.

If all that’s true, why is the ban still in effect? Political inertia and the sheer, unreasonable terror leftover from a time that no longer exists.

If I remember correctly, a study done by the Red Cross estimated that opening up donation to MSM would result in one additional HIV transfusion infection every 30 years, a statistical zero if I ever saw one. And this was without any temporary deferment. Balance that against all the people whose lives could be saved by the extra blood in the supply.

Good, appeal then. However, remember the current ban isn't because they are out to get you specifically.

I’m sorry if it seemed that way, and believe me I am appealing, and until then I’ll continue to lie my ass off.

…but those people who are afraid of the Gay Cooties don't discriminate in their discrimination. If they were banning you because you were gay and not in a high risk group, lesbians would be banned too. They are not. Trying to go "Well, society likes them better" isn't really valid.

They may not like them, but often the view is different from the one directed at gay men. Gay men are seen as evil, child raping, corrupting, irredeemable hellbounds. Lesbians just need a good man. One need only look at the laws of religious societies (to include the U.S. in the not too distant past) to see that while there have been many, many, many bans against gay male sex, there are very few bans against lesbian sex, and if they exist the punishments are often less severe. If there are laws against lesbianism they are often lumped in with laws against women in general.

Except that it certainly isn't institutionalized homophobia. It has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with discriminating against people because they are gay. We've been through this. If it were instituationalized homophobia, gay women would be banned too. If gay men in the 80s had the same rate of bloodborne pathogens as straight men, then there would be no ban today. If you want to complain about governmental inertia, I certainly sympathize. If there is no medical reason NOW in 2010 for gay men to not be able to donate blood, by all means present the case and push for it. I'll support you 100%. However, you shouldn't point fingers and make accusation of bigotry at legitimate policy, since it distracts from real issues.

Governmental policy inertia always requires shoving, I grant. We had a speaker who was involved in policy about nuclear power. In the 90s they came up with some changes for OSHA to implement that were completely procedural and everyone approved of and the handshaking/stamping process to go from when it was proposed to when it was implemented was ten years. Even a change with no resistance takes a while.

Agreed. The policy was once necessary, but I don’t think it is any more. I don’t think the Red Cross is calling for a repeal of the ban out of political pandering. I think the FDA is more susceptible to policy inertia than most government agencies. I was wrong to assume outright bigotry, but their reasons are not wholly medical.

[Knife]

You're assuming that throwing shit against the wall only needs one lump of pooh. Why charge a person with the main charge and Article 134 if you can charge them with the main charge, conduct unbecoming, and sodomy (and really anything else they can put on their without a judge laughing).

You can throw shit and make it stick on a few miscreants without getting the whole military dirty. Do you have any cases to cite that used sodomy charges against service-members who engaged in heterosexual acts with a prostitute? The stigma of "Sodomy" being used to force a plea-bargain is just one more reason to remove it from the UCMJ. The Sodomy statute does more harm than good. It also applies to BJs and anal-sex for heterosexual service-members too, but I wonder how often that's been employed against a private who got a BJ from his girlfriend off base and got caught, or for that matter against officers who get one from their wives on base.

I'm not arguing for it, rather saying they keep em on the books to have additional charges to throw at someone. That said, I don't have case history just anecdotal instances, and it seems SPC Brungargt does too.

[eion]

I'm not arguing for it, rather saying they keep em on the books to have additional charges to throw at someone. That said, I don't have case history just anecdotal instances, and it seems SPC Brungargt does too.

So essentially the Military is using Article 125 to get rid of people it doesn't have provable cause against? Sounds an awful lot like firing a pregnant women for a minor workplace violation so you can avoid paying maternity leave and the higher health insurance premiums, except for the potential to spend 5 years in Leavenworth and have a dishonorable discharge and a criminal record following you the rest of your life just because the Army didn't want to spend the extra time to find a legitimate way to get rid of you.

[Dominus Atheos]

Any chance we can get Eion's hijack split? I actually want to talk about the bill.

Anyway, it looks like a few more people have noticed the problem I pointed out earlier:

Spending may trip up 'don't ask' repeal

The House bill overturning 'don't ask, don't tell' also contains a Defense spending amendment that may prompt a White House veto.

By Julian E. Barnes, Tribune Washington Bureau

May 29, 2010

The bill repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military could present the Obama administration with a problem: It also contains money for projects the Pentagon considers wasteful.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill containing money for weapons programs that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is trying to eliminate as part of his campaign to tame the Pentagon budget.

As a result, President Obama could end up vetoing Congress' repeal of the ban on gays in the military, a legal change he promised to push through during his campaign for the White House.

Late Thursday night, the House passed an amendment to the Defense authorization bill repealing the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" law. But it also passed an amendment providing $500 million to continue developing a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The House approved the entire bill, including both amendments, Friday in a vote of 229 to 186.

"Gates has made clear that killing the alternative engine is a top priority," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "He is putting his foot down."

The White House warned again on Friday that the president's advisors would push for a veto if the money for the second engine remained in the bill.

"It sets up an interesting predicament for the president," Harrison said.

Military leaders did not want Congress to push through the "don't ask" repeal in this year's Defense authorization act. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked lawmakers to wait until the Pentagon completes a review in December assessing the impact of changing the law.

But in a message to troops released Friday, Gates tried to reassure military personnel about the compromise legislation, and to assure them the review still mattered.

"The legislation involved is a deferred repeal," he said. "It would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' but only after — I repeat after — the ongoing Department of Defense high-level review is completed."

Gates also emphasized that the policy would only change after he, the president and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that allowing gays to serve openly would not hurt "unit cohesion, military readiness, military effectiveness and recruiting and retention."

Despite his support for repealing the ban on gays serving in the military, Gates is likely to continue to push for a veto of the authorization bill if the final version contains money for the second F-35 engine.

Members of Congress who support the second engine seem to be counting on the fact that the White House will be loath to veto a law allowing gays to serve in the military.

"The dilemma for the Democrats is you have 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal in the bill and you have stuff that has a serious veto threat," said a congressional staff member.

The Senate version of the bill does not have funding for the second engine.

If the alternate engine remains out of the Senate bill, the White House will likely push for the House amendment to be dropped when the two bills are reconciled.

Pratt & Whitney makes the primary engine for the F-35. The engine is assembled in East Hartford, Conn. The alternate engine has been designed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce; it would largely be assembled at GE's plant in Evendale, Ohio, and the Rolls-Royce plant in Indianapolis.

The fuselage of the F-35 is built in Palmdale, Calif., and final assembly is in Fort Worth, Texas.

[eion]

I've no issue with a split, though I wouldn't call it a hijack since I was answering a question.

Anyway, back on topic. That is an issue, but there's still the Senate to get through, and then a conference commitee, and just because funding for a second engine is a part of the final defense uthorization doesn't mean the money couldn't be reallocated in a later bill. I would hope the President and the SecDef can see that repealing DADT will have lasting implications far beyond their political lifetimes.

Money is relativly easy to fix, equality is not.

[Chris OFarrell]

Ah the American political system. Awesome.