[clmonk]

Quite honestly I don't recall anyone asking you how the laws of the military ought to be worded, but hey...I'm just saying.
What activities?? You ask what activities? Do you need technical definitions of what gay men do? Do you need me to explain what gay women do? These activities are expressly and specifically forbidden under the UCMJ. Adultery CAN BE applied to this discussion. Sexual activity by a married person outside the confines of that marriage is adultery. Legalist absolutism--does that mean I abide by the law because it is the law? Then call me a legal absolutist!
But quite honestly RML as soon as you get involved in a discussion of this nature I usually remove myself from even considering it further since the disucssion moves too far in the direction of a rant.

[Parallax]

But all that is irrelevant. Here is the crux of the issue: there are activities that are now illegal. Until these activities are made legal, anyone committing these acts is breaking the law and needs to be held accountable for doing so.

I spent 14 years in the AF and I would like to add to that. Like the rest of us, they have to obey the law. The difference is that as civilians we have to obey the law by virtue of the fact that we exist, so there may be a little wiggle room there. As military members they voluntarily subjected themselves to military law and in addition to that they swore an oath to obey it. The "the law isn't fair" excuse is totally out of play.

[Ratmagiclady]

I spent 14 years in the AF and I would like to add to that. Like the rest of us, they have to obey the law. The difference is that as civilians we have to obey the law by virtue of the fact that we exist, so there may be a little wiggle room there. As military members they voluntarily subjected themselves to military law and in addition to that they swore an oath to obey it. The "the law isn't fair" excuse is totally out of play.

I think the fact that no one excludes *straight* people from the military on the grounds that they might have some unapproved-by-Christians type sex shows that DADT and what defenses of it are based on are nonsensical and discriminatory, though.

As for 'what gay men do,' Clmonk, I pretty much have to take people's word for that, ...I've known *lots* of gay men, and that varies. As for gay women and straight men, I don't have to imagine, ... and I don't see such a big difference.

Quite frankly, it's straight dudes who get their ideas from porn or something that tend to say the squickiest things out there. Aside from preachers trying to dehumanize people, of course.


Remember, though DADT is not actually about these 'behaviors' you think you can dehumanize people down to, CL. The rule *punishes people for *being* gay people, whether or *not* they're having sex or are 'caught' having sex at all.*

Only thing I am sure of in this is that those who call themselves gay really ruined a nice word. Anyone remember what gay really meant? just asking

[JeffJS]

Only thing I am sure of in this is that those who call themselves gay really ruined a nice word. Anyone remember what gay really meant? just asking

Yes.

Yes.

Do tell. Do Tell.

[JeffJS]

Do tell. Do Tell.

Hint...

Hint...

:1happy:

Now you know I don't like hints. Spell it out man.

[MRRiley]

Ok...so now that we have run down that bunny trail and trampled all over it, back to Rupert's issue. The MAJOR problem I see is if DADT is eliminated, and gays are allowed to openly be in the military, there will have to be many changes to the UCMJ.

There is only one part of the UCMJ that would have to change if DADT were overturned...

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Only a simple change would be required which could be applied equally regardless of the offender's sexual orientation...

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in nonconsensual unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Frankly I think the entire article should be discarded as the entire notion of "unnatural carnal copulation" is archaic and mired in religious sensibilities which I daresay are largely ignored even amongst all but the most religious persons (especially when you consider oral sex as part of the definition of sodomy) in a heterosexual context.

What happens to those with deep-seated moral/religious objections to this kind of behavior? Personally, I would not want to share a military two-man tent with anyone who participates in that kind of behavior. How many like-minded soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/coasties would leave the military because of this?

The same arguments were made when the military was racially integrated too. Did some soldiers leave? Sure, but many stayed and, with a minimum of incidents (almost all instigated by white soldiers who could not stomach sharing a barracks with black peers), the military operates as a model for integration today. Also, a gay guy is probably far less likely to make a pass at YOU than a straight guy is to a female soldier, especially if he knows you are straight and you know he is gay. Unwanted sexual advances are covered by other articles and can be retained unchanged such as 917 Art. 117 & 920 Art. 120 (could benefit from changing "female not his wife" to "person not their spouse" to make it gender neutral)

It is very difficult for me to see where the advantages of allowing this kind of behavior outweigh the problems associated with its implementation. Other than throwing the left a bone to keep him politically "in line" with his constituency, what is the benefit?

The benefit lies in increasing the available pool of people authorized to serve in our military.

The benefit lies in the retention of people with critical skills such as foreign language experts (an untold number of gay members fluent in middle eastern languages have been kicked out just in the last 10 years).

The benefit lies in the decreased danger of compromise of classified data because a gay person with a clearance has been blackmailed (if the mere fact of being gay in the military is a crime it is an automatic blackmail tool. If it's not a crime the tool is eliminated).

The benefit lies in letting people serve honorably without the fear that something that has no reasonable bearing upon the performance of their duties will not be used to prevent them from serving their country.

The benefit lies in treating people equally, based upon their abilities and performance rather than an archaic social prohibition.

Mike

[Ratmagiclady]

Thanks for standing up on this, MR.

And, Parallax, as far as people going into the military with their eyes open, quite frankly, too often they do not.

The military recruits among youth, and often, in the case of LBGTs, these are people who are a) taught that being LBGT is a 'choice,' b) often mistreated at home and in their communities, with the military being one of the two prominent tickets *out,* and c) Told that in the case of gay male youth, trying to conform, that 'The Army'll make a man out of you,' ... And for a lot of young women, it's the only chance at self-sufficiency and not-getting-married-off they may have available. (Theoretically a nice way to not have to have sex with men, too.)

People end up in the military, figuring that at least they can keep hiding like they often do anyway, and then once in and on their own and living life, ....find that things just don't work like people like religious conservatives claim.

Folks like CLmonk, seem to expect a lot of suffering for his sense of 'comfort.' And let me tell you, straight men are no bargain, as a 'class,' either. I used to get a lot of, err, 'attention' in slightly-less mousey days. Some manage to be professionals about things, somehow, though.

[MRRiley]

I spent 14 years in the AF and I would like to add to that. Like the rest of us, they have to obey the law. The difference is that as civilians we have to obey the law by virtue of the fact that we exist, so there may be a little wiggle room there. As military members they voluntarily subjected themselves to military law and in addition to that they swore an oath to obey it. The "the law isn't fair" excuse is totally out of play.

I, for one, never said they were not subject to the law or that they should be excused when they break it. As a senior NCO I did have to enforce the rules, even when I considered them "wrong, stupid or wasteful." You are right, people join voluntarily and they should serve within the bounds of the regulations but you know as well as I do that there are rules and then there are rules. As I asked before, when was the last time a general turned down a sex act from their spouse because it was directly prohibited by Article 125?

Except for rare circumstances (such as cited by clmonk) Article 125 is seldom used to prosecute heterosexual members, but it is the primary and predominant charge when a gay service member is prosecuted.

The question before us is whether these rules should be changed...

[Parallax]

I, for one, never said they were not subject to the law or that they should be excused when they break it. As a senior NCO I did have to enforce the rules, even when I considered them "wrong, stupid or wasteful." You are right, people join voluntarily and they should serve within the bounds of the regulations but you know as well as I do that there are rules and then there are rules. As I asked before, when was the last time a general turned down a sex act from their spouse because it was directly prohibited by Article 125?

Except for rare circumstances (such as cited by clmonk) Article 125 is seldom used to prosecute heterosexual members, but it is the primary and predominant charge when a gay service member is prosecuted.

The question before us is whether these rules should be changed...

Mike, I "winked" at a few regulations myself during my time, and I'm making no argument against gays being allowed to serve. Every one of the points you made about the benefits of it, particularly the security issue, was valid. My only issue here is with people crying about being in an unfair situation that they knowingly and voluntarily put themselves into.

[Oldschool]

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I didn't serve in the military. Isn't fraternization the term used for having a relationship and isn't that against the rules whether it's same sex or opposite sex.

I read an article that quoted a Dutch officer which does not discriminate for sexual preference that basically stated that all relationships whether same sex or opposite sex were against their rules.

The US and Turkey are the only military services in NATO that don't allow gay servicemen or women. This means that there are probably plenty of gay or lesbian soldiers serving with our men & women in Afganistan, Iraq, and throughout the world.

[Ratmagiclady]

Except for rare circumstances (such as cited by clmonk) Article 125 is seldom used to prosecute heterosexual members, but it is the primary and predominant charge when a gay service member is prosecuted.

The question before us is whether these rules should be changed...

Looks to me like the UCMJ's definition of sodomy basically means *rape,* (edit: Ah, that's one you 'corrected' ) maybe said in a men-not-having-to-say-rape way,
....not the same thing as when preachers call gay people 'Sodomites' or whatever to begin with.


Unnatural, though? That's a curious term. Also, not actually a legally-useful definition, I should think.

In that case it doesn't seem to be the UCMJ that's confused, but rather the fact that some take it to mean military approval of their religious version of the term, when it clearly is not defined so.

[MRRiley]

As a 22 year veteran I will take the other side on this discussion by saying, ANY time ANY member of the military willingly chooses to disregard ANY regulation--whether they think it is right or wrong--they willing take upon themselves the consequences of their actions. It makes no difference how bright, how willing, how capable, how...; if they knowingly choose to break the laws that are in place for their own welfare they should accept the punishment for their actions. Both sodomy and adultery are punishable offenses under the UCMJ.

an interesting note here...

"Adultery" specifically is not an offense under the UCMJ... The primary article generally used to prosecute soldiers for adultery is Article 120 - Rape & Carnal Knowledge...

A couple of interesting notes about Article 120 as written...

- a female soldier cannot be charged for rape
- a male cannot be charged for raping his wife even if she does not consent to sexual activity
- adultery is considered rape if commited by a male service member upon a female, but is not addressed where female service members are concerned regardless of the gender of their victim.

The only Article which could be used to prosecute "adultery" as a primary charge would be "Article 134, the General Article" which is commonly known as the "Gotcha Article" since it can be used to cover just about anything which military authorieis think could bring "discredit upon the armed forces."