He describes a supposed tactic of insurgency fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to bury hepatitis- and HIV-contaminated needles point-up in the ground around roadside bombs, in the hopes that U.S. military personnel will, while digging up the bomb, prick themselves and become infected. No idea whether or not this is true, but it's the line AFTER that paragraph that has me reeling with bwuh?.
If we connect the dots here, the inescapable conclusion is that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism.Um. It is? Inescapably? He must be playing with a different set of dots than I am, because no matter how I shuffle those dots around and connect them in my head, there is no way I can ever get "domestic terrorism" and "gay sex" to connect. But don't worry, he will be happy to mansplain his off-this-planet conclusion!
Every time an HIV-infectedThere, I fixed that for you. Of course, it's still not true (HIV transmission is not *guaranteed* if one has unprotected sex with someone who has it, it's more of a Russian Roulette sort of thing) but it's at least less wrong.
maleperson has [unprotected] sex with another maleperson, it's essentially the same as plunging an infected heroin needle into his arm.
He's passing on a potential death sentence, just as the Taliban seeks to do on a foreign battlefield.Ok, so we're trying to draw a parallel between the Taliban and gay DEATHSEX. Is it sad that I can honestly say I've seen weirder parallels drawn?
It is because of the risk of HIV transmission that the FDA will not allow a male homosexual to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977. The second riskiest behavior for HIV infection is injection drug use.Hopefully not for much longer, what with the whole science-doesn't-support-that thing. But you go ahead and uncritically accept the Government Knows Best attitude about it, since it's convenient for your argument.
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.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the military screens entrants, including a medical exam, and I'd imagine HIV is on the list of disqualifiers for military service. A quick google confirms my suspicions in all of 3 clicks and 20 seconds, so the score for fact-checking stands at Bryan Fischer: 0, Random Blogger: 1. Also, my military-medical knowledge is fairly limited, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that the odds of needing an in-the-field, direct transfusion from one soldier to another are vanishingly small in this day and age. Combine that with the odds of an active-duty soldier having HIV in the first place, and this scary scenario is laughably unlikely.
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.Oh, for the love of...I seem to recall saying this in my last post, and I know I said it on Twitter earlier, but it seems I need to say it again: THIS IS NOT ABOUT *ALLOWING* LGBs INTO THE MILITARY. THEY ARE ALREADY THERE. Kthx.
But I was right. He's playing with a very different set of dots than I am, since his set apparently includes dots like GAY SEX IS DEATHSEX and THERE ARE NO GAYS IN THE MILITARY UNLESS WE LET THEM IN and ALL GAYS HAVE HIV BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING GAY DEATHSEX. Can we just send Fischer and Beck off to rave at each other in a dark corner somewhere away from the rest of us, please?