Joe Rehyansky, a former member of the U.S. Army and the Chattanooga, Tennessee, District Attorney’s office, doesn’t want gay men in the military, but he’s more than happy to welcome lesbians.
Rehyansky is an expert on this topic. He has showered with men before. Fortunately, none of those men were … you know.
I’m certain I would have vivid memories of the experience if my shower-mates had been potential sexual partners.
And obviously, for the gays, every single man is a potential partner. It’s “‘party time’ all the time” when you’re a homosexual:
Most men who are sexually attracted to other men can and do indulge their promiscuous urges with little or no restraint; i.e., it’s “party time” all the time.
My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago. An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.” My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.” I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.” The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners.
But what does this have to do with force readiness? STDs, duh:
My answer should by now be as painfully obvious as a suppurating genital rash: gays spread disease at a rate out of all proportion to their numbers in our population and should be excluded from the military.
If you allow the homosexual menace into the military, AIDS will spread like wildfire:
Herpes and AIDS are infectious and chronic and the latter, despite advancements in lengthening and improving the lives of its sufferers, will eventually kill you as dead as a bullet in your brain unless something else gets you first. The military has depended on “blood on the hoof”—transfusions from live donor to live recipient—ever since transfusions were perfected by the discovery of blood groups in 1901. A significant population of gays in the military has the potential for disastrous health consequences.
To conclude:
If a Constitutional right to privacy that guarantees access to abortionists can be summoned from thin air, certainly the prohibition against involuntary servitude should prevent unwilling heterosexual men from providing beefcake parades without their informed consent, at least penumbrally.
Boom. “Beefcake parade.”
This man is arguing against the inclusion of openly gay men in the military for two reasons: awkward showers and the risk of infecting the military with AIDS through blood transfusions.
The majority of the military’s blood supply is collected and tested by the Armed Services Blood Program. Unscreened blood transfusions are still used, but only as a last resort. Sure, it’s true that an abnormally high number of gay men are infected with HIV, but these transfusions are rarely used. Infected blood could just as easily be an issue with a straight guy. If Rehyansky thinks gays should be banned for the STD risk, then anyone who could be needed for an emergency blood transfusion should be tested for STDs before they enter the military.
As for his other point: yeah, surveys have shown that men say they’re more sexually promiscuous than women, but so what? The straight-gay shower was covered in the recent study on the effects of repealing DADT. As I wrote, other than in the Marine Corps, the majority of the respondents reported no problems with serving alongside openly gay members.
Just because Rehyansky has a problem doesn’t mean everyone else does. After seeing a documentary, he thinks he knows how all gay men function. He assumes—since he’s heard stories about Fire Island—that gay soldiers will be fawning over their straight shower mates.
Rehyansky’s column is so biased and ill-informed it borders on The Onion–style satire. Our initial reaction was that this is a joke—who could earnestly believe this? But it isn’t, and this man does.