Don't Ask, Don't Tell Costs Millions

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by I Am Blessed 24, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Associated Press | February 14, 2006

    WASHINGTON - Discharging troops under the Pentagon's policy on gays cost $363.8 million over 10 years, almost double what the government concluded a year ago, a private report says.

    The report, to be released Tuesday by a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, questioned the methodology the Government Accountability Office used when it estimated that the financial impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was at least $190.5 million.

    "It builds on the previous findings and paints a more complete picture of the costs," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who has proposed Legislation that would repeal the policy.

    LINK
     
  2. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    The report does not state whether this amount is over and above the cost of the previous policy so it's rather meaningless.
     
  3. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the whole point is that there is proposed legislation to repeal the policy.

    I'm sure you could find the amount of the previous policy if you 'googled'... ;)
     
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am not interested enough to look it up. My comment was that it was basically a sloppy article not to have made that clear.

    As I understand, don't ask, don't tell is illegal because it violates statute, but I don't have the details on that.
     
  5. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was approved under the Clinton administration. Surely Bill wouldn't do anything illegal... :rolleyes:

    Simple solution and save the hundreds of millions of dollars the "Blue" Ribbon Committee discovered lost.

    Ask a potential enlistee if they're gay. If they proudly say they are, show them the door. If they say they aren't, sign the dotted line but subsequently "come out," dishonorably discharge them for a fraudulant enlistment.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    [​IMG] with some minor variations.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR makes a very good point. The report doesn't say what previous number were, so it cannot be concluded that the DADT policy resulted in a greater expense.

    Regardless of the issue, I've never been able to figure out why a homosexual soldier's blood and sacrifice is of less value on the field than heterosexual's blood and sacrifice. I've never been in favor of the DADT policy, but I've also never been in favor of disallowing gays from serving theri country. Let' em serve. All unmarried officers (gay and straight) should understand that any acts of fornication are grounds for dishonorable discharge. Same for any married personnel that are married, in case of infidelity.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    If that was all there was to it, I might agree.

    But putting a homosexual male in a barracks full of men using communal showers is tantamount to putting a heterosexual male in a barracks full of females with communal showers.

    Then there's the problem of dealing with possible exposure to HIV body fluids on the battlefield.
     
  9. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent point Carpro.
     
  10. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    double post
     
  11. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Carpo,

    You first argument makes sense, although I'm sure it would be difficult to prove. (As communal showers have not been a problem under the DADT, when a solier is gay) In this day and age, who knows.

    Your second argument, however, is very weak. Homosexual soldiers are not more likely to have HIV than a hetrosexual soldier. HIV can affect hetro or homosexuals, equally, if they are sexually promiscuous and do not use protection.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296
    Are you denying that the incidence of aids is higher amongst homosexual males than it is heterosexuals?
     
  13. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Filmproducer
    Apparently you are not aware of HIV/AIDS being widespread in the homosexual community. What rock do you live under?
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

    But, if it's an issue, provide separate showers.
    HIV can't be contracted in the manner your'e describing. The HIV virus simply isn't that strong. Even if it was copious bleeding wound in contact with another copious bleeding wound, the chances are extremely unlikely. However, it would be false to simply assume that if a soldier is gay, then he must be HIV positive. If that's an issue, then make HIV an ineligibility to serve. I don't know what the current policy is on enlisted heterosexuals who have HIV. But I'd imagine that extending that same policy to all with HIV should mitigate the issue.
     
  15. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Completely absurd.

    Absolutely NOT and I might add ridiculous.

    Good thing your not practicing medicine. [​IMG]
     
  16. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The opinions of military men who served is absurd? Whatever.

    Why is it ridiculous to accommodate someone who wants to serve his country? You'd think that's the least we could do.
    You clearly do not, otherwise you would not make such an ignorant statement.
     
  17. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Carpo and Enoch,

    I am not denying the infection rate among homosexual men, I was just pointing out that it is high for heterosexual contact also. So may I ask, what rock are YOU living under? Being gay does not automatically mean you are HIV positive. Being heterosexual does not guarantee you will not contract HIV.

    According to the CDC's report, "Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States, 2004", 47% of MSM, (male sex male), accounted for all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004. 33% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2004 were the result of HETEROSEXUAL contact. Both numbers are high, IMO. So once again, the argument was weak.
     
  18. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Military recruitment and retention will not be helped by a policy that will compromise the privacy of heterosexuals, particularly on ships and in two man room barracks where one is not given a choice of one's roommate.

    Apart from prisons, civilians are not forced to live in close quarters with people whose sexual orientation is different from their own.

    Let the people who issued the report answer questions like:

    </font>
    • How many more people would be discharged for homosexual behavior?</font>

    </font>
    • If we then legalize homosexual relations, would we not then be forced to legalize adultery?</font>

    </font>
    • If two known homosexuals can share a same barracks room, would it not be discriminatory to deny a heterosexual man and woman the same privilege?</font>
    These are just a few questions this private non-military group failed to address.

    My husband is a retired Navy Chief, and after serving on a submarine for most of his 26 years in the military, he has some very strong opinions on this subject...
     
  19. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

    I have heard this also, hence my statement that it has not been a problem, thus far. Logically Carpo's argument makes sense, but there is no concrete proof that communal showers have been a problem for homosexuals.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,927
    Likes Received:
    296

    I used to think the same as you do, but now, I dunno about that. My cousins who have served say it's more like one man in a barracks full of other people who are all his brothers. Siblings don't have physical attraction for their siblings, whether they're gay or straight. Since I never served, I rely on the opinions of those who did.

    But, if it's an issue, provide separate showers.
    HIV can't be contracted in the manner your'e describing. The HIV virus simply isn't that strong. Even if it was copious bleeding wound in contact with another copious bleeding wound, the chances are extremely unlikely. However, it would be false to simply assume that if a soldier is gay, then he must be HIV positive. If that's an issue, then make HIV an ineligibility to serve. I don't know what the current policy is on enlisted heterosexuals who have HIV. But I'd imagine that extending that same policy to all with HIV should mitigate the issue.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Not being homosexual, I can only guess what stimulates them sexually, but we all should know that men , in general, are sexually stimulated visually. Are homosexuals different? I doubt it.

    Separate showers? Why not? That would cost almost nothing to try to prevent a problem the military shouldn't have in the first place.

    HIV probably already does cause ineligibility to serve, however if a soldier willfully contracts it while in the service, does the Army have to take care of him medically for the rest of his life,like other service related disabilities?

    I wonder why physicians and nurses who work with AIDS patients are so careful not to even be pricked by a needle that has been used on an Aids patient and are required to be screened when it happens.
    :eek:

    But it can't happen on the battlefield?

    Puh Leeze. :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page

Loading...