As far as I know, yes.
I suppose that anything is possible, but that sounds made up. If it really happened, then it has got to be extremely rare. It just sounds absurd.
Or maybe the aggressive ones join the military.
Printable View
As far as I know, yes.
I suppose that anything is possible, but that sounds made up. If it really happened, then it has got to be extremely rare. It just sounds absurd.
Or maybe the aggressive ones join the military.
Bad manners seems to be the norm these days, to me it shows a complete lack of respect for others who must share the same space. :cool:
I agree with Schmedlap that this sounds contrived. The way DADT and the UCMJ works is that even if the men made the accusation it would still have to be proven. As noted in previous posts the higher ratio of women being discharged for being lesbians perhaps is due to it being easier to get the discharge that way then through pregnancy or other reasons. By claiming to be a lesbian the woman can receive her discharge, not have a child on the way, and in many areas there is no stigma attached to being a lesbian (there are males who are disgusted by gay men but see no issue with lesbians).
The Times article says “some women who served in the military said the gap could also be a result of "lesbian-baiting" rumors and investigations that arise when women rebuff sexual overtures from male colleagues.” If the men were sexually harassing the women for refusing advances it could be the men who are more in jeopardy of disciplinary action in the form of EO complaints.
While there may certainly be some incidents of 'lesbian baiting' I still feel that the disparity in discharges results more from self-admittance in order to get the discharge (vice pregnancy). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 'lesbian baiting' and 'sexual harassment' aspects were actually cover stories. Since the discharge may be “other than honorable” the women would have to explain to employers why they were discharged in that manner. Rather than admit to being a lesbian (they may in fact not be gay) a woman could just as easily attribute their discharge to males harassing them and accusing them of being gay, so they were unfairly persecuted and discharged. Most employers, not being familiar with military jurisprudence, probably would take the woman's word for it. Sort of a win – win for the woman.
What to do with DADT. I know what views on this are and I know how people would have responded to lifting DADT in the late 80's - mid 90's Marine Corps, but how about now?
I asked a guy at work who served in the Marine Corps in the last few years how he and the other guys viewed DADT. He said that they believed their was a guy in their weapons company who they all thought was gay - so if he would come out, it would be no big suprise. What about those who will come out that WILL be a suprise - could that not harm morale or it will be so few it will not make a difference?
Also, IMO, lifting DADT will allow those passed over for promotion, etc to use being gay as an excuse, but I guess it would be no different then using race or religion as an excuse.
I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.
Is DADT all about nothing or should we keep this in place?
All I know is it upsets my universe - kind of like girls playing organized football or wrestling. Some things are just not right. But, I guess if it does not harm me then why should I care - right? I just think this will turn into a cluster.
Like it or not, the Constitution says that Congress sets policies for the military, not democratic votes by military members. Article I, Section 8:Quote:
I say let all service members vote on this. Easy vote. Yes for DADT, No for DADT. What the sevice members decide is the way it will be.
"The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"
The problem though is that to this point Congress has made no law changing DADT. This recent termination of DADT is by order of a federal judge who is in effect legislating from the bench. The last time I checked the judicial branch had no power to pass laws or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. It's really a breach of the separation of powers as set up by the Constitution.
The resistance against Gay service men and women comes from an abhorrence of their sexual practices or from a banning under the authority of religious texts. Gay personnel serve their country and lay down their lives for the survival of their country, they therefore deserve maximum consideration.
The Religious objection:
For those who serve, whose religion is one of their main drives and whose religion bans homosexuality, not much can be done about making concessions to their colleagues who may be homosexual. It could be pointed out from the scholar's perspective, that scriptures were written in ancient times under ancient standards which make no allowance for modern life or modern medicine. Nowadays, in general, the Churches are trying to be considerate and loving to one another, not like the old days when they were the driving force to slaughter each other, including children and including tortures that are banned today by all civil governments and peoples. Under this modern ethical principle, an allowance can be made for homosexuals to be tolerated or befriended as they would be as practitioners of another religion. All civil religions disagree on many points of belief, but agree on the one overriding principle of being friendly to neighbors who are different from you.
The Sexual Objection:
Sexual practices vary widely, not only between different cultures, but also within them. The overriding principles are that sex must be between consenting adults (not children), and that no real harm must be done to a partner. So an accepted spank might be OK, but not a bashing with physical damage.
Also hygiene is very important as the health of a partner (indeed the whole community) depends on this. HIV and hepatitis for instance are rampant and must be completely contained. HIV being transmitted of course not only by some male homosexual (or heterosexual) practices, such as unsafe sex with anal intercourse. I understand that HIV first spread by eating infected monkeys or apes (who had at least partial immunity). So there are many medical safety procedures to be followed: No eating infected flesh (there is also mad cows' disease); no sharing of drug needles; checking donated blood; no unprotected anal intercourse (also no aspirin to those foolish enough to practice that unprotected practice); no unsafe sex (especially amongst naive minors) for adults unless cleared by medical checkup and fidelity; and no administering of First Aid without gloves (if possible). Condoms, like gloves, are not perfect, but can save many lives, lives shortened or lives diseased and miserable. In regard to Personal Defensive Tactics, for law enforcement, security officers, military combatants and self defense: Beware of the infection dangers of biting (both giving and receiving); same dangers in striking the teeth with fist or a headbutt (avoid).
Sexual Approaches:
Sex is (normally) a deepest form of intimacy, of touching body and soul. If abused it is criminal and the damage can be to the body -- which may be temporary; or to the mind -- which may be permanent. So long as homosexuals do not abuse each other, have consent and hygiene, there should be not much to be concerned about. However, the abhorrence that quite a few heterosexuals feel about homosexual practices may be irritated by their Fear that a homosexual will approach them with an offer to engage in a homosexual act. Thus results a confrontation of personal intimate choices.
Homosexual personal controls extend from not damaging each other, to also not imposing themselves on heterosexual persons, as that can result in conflict and aggression. For that to work in practice, I would say that it would be helpful if homosexual military personal (for instance) had some means of identifying others of like kind that was definite and without misinterpretation, possibly visual. I don't mean wear a pink armband, but perhaps homosexuals could themselves consider the matter and come up with some suitable, maybe subtle, agreed sign, especially when the peaceful cohesiveness of a combat group may be at stake. Basically, what needs to be got around, is the aversion of heterosexuals to being approached by homosexuals in a homosexual way: as they take it as a challenge to the 'normality' of their own sexuality (which maybe it is). Some (maybe many) persons are bi-sexual or are uncertain of their sexuality and cannot handle it being put to the test. Some persons are afraid of sex (of any kind) as they are, when in the act, vulnerable and afraid of being abused, hurt or dominated by another stronger personality. It is not unheard of; and sexual abuse is a vital part of many of the tragedies of human relationships. Sex can be pleasant of course, but it is also a touchy vulnerability communication issue and practical processes need to be put in place to protect the varying and volatile sensitivities of people. Where there is not even physical but there is mentally perceived violating, violent reactions ensue.
I think your view of religion is just a little whacked, by the pop-culture tendency to demonify historic religion. There is also a "chicken and egg" scenario as to whether religion caused historic abuses, or people who would've abused power anyway use religion as an excuse, or religion is applied as an excuse by whack-job modern historians, such as the recent "Hitler was a Christian" spew.
As for the rest of your post? Here's one: The military is not a freaking pick up bar. If your sexuality, sexual orientation or partner choice becomes an issue during uniformed service, you get the opportunity to go earn a living somewhere else. With a Bad Conduct Discharge accompanied by confinement, if necessary.
That's all I got. Tired of "activists" who see the military as an "opportunity" for social activism.
Also tired of the knuckle-dragging haters of whatever breed.
I take issue with your contention that there are those in the military who can righteously object to homosexuality. All to often, the homophobes are nominally religious and their religious objections are based in ignorance and hypocrisy. Having been raised in a fundamentalist, evangelical home, I can state with complete certainty that the Bible (and the Torah and Koran) forbid Adultery, Fornication, Alcholism, Gambling, Cursing, and even Prostitution there are also a fair number who would like to say that smoking is also a sin. You will find a plethora of the above listed vices in the military services. Indeed, with male homophobes, you will often find acceptance of lesbianism (so long as they are young and hot and on video tape), but not male homosexuality. This is all to say, these homophobes are using religion as a crutch for their own petty small mindedness; that we are willing to enshrine it in public policy is a tremendous disgrace. The number of servicemembers who are truly virtuous and follow the Bible strictly is likely less than 1%.
As for your argument about sexual objection, like I said there seems to be no problem with Fornication, Adultery, or Prostitution. "Wrap it up" is sage advice for both gay and straight. The service isn't a pick-up joint, but it seems that many heterosexuals treat it as such, and if you like, I recommend you review the numbers of female servicemembers who are married to a fellow servicemember. The numbers are something like 40-50%.
Finally, as a straight man who was required to conduct two DADT investigations while stationed aboard USS Last Ship, I have to say my greatest problem with DADT after the hypocrisy and fairness issues, is that DADT essentially confers special rights upon gays and lesbians in the service. I investigated a minor sexual assault, something that could have gone to Captain's Mast and resulted in a bust, restriction, etc. But, since it was a potential DADT and the result could be Admin Sep, I had to ensure the servicemember understood the entire DoD DADT policy, and then ask questions.
DADT is stupid, and it's continued maintenance by old white men is an absolute tragedy.
Why is this so imperative to swing around while we are in 3 wars?
What is so hard about keeping your bedroom in your bedroom?
If there is no issue, do not make it one. The Military is NOT a social experiment. Most men do not care who is gay. I do not see who would want to openly advertise that.
As with all things, keep everything in your pants in your unit, and invite them not to your bedroom. And there is enough legal issues to tend with in these wars already.
Could we kill this dead horse already and let our Soldiers go about their business without more idiot briefings?
People are trying to kill US.
Keep your sex where it belongs - that means it is no ones business but yours.
May we attend to war now?
i loooove men...but its too tempting to be together. so if i was a gay person and in the same unit it would be too much.
You could always re-create "Sacred Bands";)
how sexy! this may actually work out for the best!Quote:
The Sacred Band of Thebes was made up of one hundred and fifty male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds.
The answer to that is easy. A certain portion of the counter-culture is there in order to revel in the attention they get through their freakazoid behavior. It's not about sexuality, it's about being an attention-wh*re.
And while there is a war going on, they feel the need to meddle and draw attention. Some, but not all of the gay community participate in homosexuality because the behavior is "extreme." And if gay behavior was mainstream, they'd be diddling little kids. And if diddling little kids was mainstream, they'd be boinking farm animals. And if farm animals was mainstream, they'd be doing dead bodies. Etc., etc...
So, again, it goes back to my main point. Anyone who allows their behavior, straight or gay, or even non-sexual, to interfere with good order and discipline, needs to find other work.
Amen.
- I don't care about the melanin content of someones skin.
- I don't care about where they worship, what day they worship, or even if they worship.
- I don't care if their biological plumbing is internal or external.
- I don't care about what their milk language was, or what language their parents spoke, or their grandparents, as long as they pass the security check.
- I don't care, and don't particularly want to know, what they do in the bedroom, or whom they're doing it with, as long as everyone is consenting and of age.
I do care about getting the mission accomplished or getting the job done. The controversy over DADT is a needless distraction from that, promoted for purposes having nothing to do with military readiness (see point 5).
Banning gays from the military doesn't only have to be about religious reasons or an aversion to their sexual conduct. As the military requires a measure of conformity and thus the recognition of "norms"- openly serving homosexuals in many instances would elevate an individual above the organization and force the organization to tolerate, accept, or ignore behavior and/or lifestyles that are still outside of what is considered normal- both within U.S. society, world opinion, and within military culture.
Whether or not a military institution should be that insular and uniform is another subject, but suffice it to say that most professional armies today- and in known history- took on a certain culture of their own which helped to overcome the natural tendency of the individual to run and hide or attack (fight or flight response). This allowed a level of discipline that could be very lethal under the right conditions (usually mainly leadership). Upsetting this culture could be detrimental in many instances. Since combat is all about dealing death- most people in positions of leadership have been wary to force changes that could lead to casualties and/or loss of capability.
So, in short- the thought is that a small group of humans given a mission that chances death, requires a high degree of trust in a short amount of time in order to have the greatest chance of success. The easiest way to build trust is through shared experiences and hardship. If this group starts out with a shared understanding of priorities and purpose- then they can "gell" even faster. Shared norms and culture are a part of this understanding. The more differences these groups have to overcome to arrive at a shared level of understanding, the harder and longer it takes to build trust. Sure, one combat action may overcome all of that- but who wants to take the chance it doesn't, or that many die trying to get there- possibly due to the lack of a common shared beginning?
Talking to our allies' officers, I have found a few curious comments that seem to be pretty uniform:
1) Most gays don't come out even when the policies are changed due to the stigma in the society that still exists regardless of the military's policy and because in combat units at the small-unit level- conformity is the strongest influence on all members.
2) They have a huge problem with "predatory lesbians", although you'd never hear that due to it being politically-incorrect to do so. Suffice it to say that many young females who fall under higher-ranking, usually NCO, lesbians, are coerced to have relationships with other women. Even though this is against the policy of these armies no matter the sexual persuasion of the offender- because it has to do with women and homosexuals, it is a more difficult issue, especially when men in authority have to deal with it. The one solution I have heard a lot is that they bring in outside women officers to break the behavior up/do investigations.
So, in conclusion, I think any issue which could potentially affect the military's raison d'être- to defend the nation's interests- no matter how unfair it may seem to some- should be looked at very carefully and those in positions of influence should favor the side of caution, since lives are on the line.
but I've got to say it anyway: who thinks that the day the law changes Mike Mullen will be out of the closet?
I was shocked to log on and see no mention of the repeal of DADT. So here's the forum to discuss it.
As an avid reader for several years, but what the internet would probably refer to as a 'lurker' the appearance of a post by 120mm (now amended) spurred me to become what you refer to as a one post wonder.
Moderator adds:There were further comments on ROE and these no longer apply as a Moderator has intervened.
120mm: I certainly have gay friends currently serving in the US military who do care, not to mention those who may think that there may be social issues whose importance rather trumps military considerations.
Deus Ex: There was no need to express your "shock," with all the implied criticism embedded in that term. You simply had to find one of the many threads in which DADT is discussed, and update it with some thoughtful comments on repeal. It is rather pointless starting a thread without actually saying anything.
Thalatta, Welcome aboard !
I won't apologize for 120's comments as I know him to be a rather direct individual and very professional in whatever he does. Some of us take our Council very seriously which often means letting 120 out of his cage for clean up ops :eek:
As an avid reader for several years you would have noticed that we do have ROE where, among other things, first time posters normally provide a courteous introduction so the rest of us know where you're coming from. As Rex pointed out, an avid reader would have noted, there are already several DADT threads where Deus Ex's rather empty comments would have appropriately been posted.
Inevitably a moderator will see this thread and, in addition to cleaning it up will move or delete Deus Ex's post along with mine :D Moderator action taken - you may notice!
I look forward to your introductions.
Regards, Stan
Stan, 120mm and others,
Point A
I have emerged five threads on this topic into one, with a slightly amended title and you can see there has been a long running discussion on the topic. (I simply searched on DADT, so there maybe other threads).
Point B
Meantime, new members are not required to post an introduction, as the joining instructions make clear; yes, a few words are appreciated and welcomed by many IMHO. Members choose whether to introduce themselves.
What I find most interesting about the entire "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate is that it focuses entirely on issue of homosexuals right to serve in the military, and the impact of having homosexuals serving openly in the military.
Those of us who have spent long years in the military all have known and worked with dozens of relatively openly homosexual service members throughout our careers. While it makes some uncomfortable and leads to some distasteful commentary, from insults to humor, it really seems like much of a non-issue by in large.
What has not been discussed at all though is the much larger issue of homosexual acts rather than homosexual orientation. Prisons are full of straight men and women, who for lack of any other option, participate willingly in homosexual acts. They rationalize it as just one more hard compromise they have to make based upon their circumstances.
A Marine friend of mine, who is famous for his candor and rough humor (you gotta love the military for this unique aspect of the community, the last refuge where PC is held somewhat at bay), would say "It's not gay if your underway!" As a winter ranger we would huddle spooning and shivering under shared ponchos and poncho liners in desperate attempts to stay warm enough to catch a couple hours of sleep and joke "No queers on a cold night!" Such rough, ironic barracks humor is about to become a barracks reality.
The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
While certainly homosexual acts between straight service members occurred throughout the history of the military, for the U.S. military the tool employed to contain and mitigate the widespread incidence of such acts was first the ban on homosexuals altogether, followed by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Now that constraint will be lifted. Will DoD expand their puritanical controls to greater regulation sexual activity between consenting adults? Or will the U.S. military devolve into a culture where senior leaders have "Chai boys" and every squad has a "squad boy"?
I really don't know, and I'm not judging. I just find it interesting that while everyone was agonizing over the civil rights of homosexuals and the potential impact of openly serving homosexuals on unit morale, no one bothered to talk about what I see as a much larger issues of the "prison sex" syndrome. The greater incidence of such acts is inevitable. There will likely be a rise of same-sex abuse of rank and power for sex in exchange for privileges and favors as well.
We're entering a new era, and no one is talking about the most critical aspect of that era.
Yep, that will be a really,really big issue IMO unless it is covered up. I said it before the Combatives manual is nothing but a Gay Prison Sex manual:eek: There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.
I couldn't disagree more.Quote:
The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
Being on deployment doesn't compare to being in prison. Strangely enough, men can go eight months or more without having sex. Most of us lower enlisted tend to overcompensate a bit on this score when we get home, but it's not really that unendurable. Unlike prison, we are not trapped in restrictive circumstances for years at a time, and unlike prison we are volunteers who, generally, have a degree of discipline and professionalism that separates us from most of the civilian population.
Oh, and if you really believe that the troops lack for porn on deployment or anywhere else, you really are out of touch.
Eh, what?Quote:
There are some very disturbing seens in the movie Restrapo that hint at such behvior. If they legalize Gay stuff then why not provide Prostitution battalions for the rest of the troops.
Hmm. I doubt most of you have actually been in a state prison, though some may have spent some time in a county or city jail :) There are good stories waiting much beer about both systems, but instead of some form of caged heat, your are much more likely to find convicted murders playing chess with the CO's.
Y'all got to remember EVERYTHING is monitored inside a modern correctional facility.
So, not to put to fine a point on the topic most state prisons have some mechanism for felons to visit family members "Rocking the trailers" comes to mind.
Rampant social puritanism (no sex anywhere or any form) and cultural constructivism (no beer in Muslim countries) seem to be forms of control that rarely have anything to do with war fighting. We will kill your families, bomb your homes, destroy your country, but heck no we won't offend you by drinking beer in country. From this side of the civilian pond it seems absurd.
120mm*, your initial response (not seen here because you edited it) was quite condescending. You seemed to be accusing me of creating the thread (even though I have been a reader here for years) merely in order to spark controversy, and you also seemed to assume that I held a position against the repeal of DADT. Two equally bold and unfounded claims. This is a landmark decision that could have quite a changing effect upon civilian society in the decades to come.
I didn't initially add commentary because of two reasons: first, I would have liked to see a few of the responses, and second, just when I posted the thread I had real life obligations arise that didn't give me time to expand upon my thoughts. I felt, wrongly, given the moderator decision to merge threads, that prior speculation and the actual inclusion of gays were two quite different things. My mistake.
Now that I have the time, there are only two potential problems I see with openly gay people serving (which I support).
First, the vernacular of soldiers. Having experienced the common vernacular of officers, lower enlisted, and NCOs (drill sergeants especially), nearly every soldier says "gay" and "fag/faggot." I know very well educated people who stupidly employ "gay" and "fag" towards things with no relation to homosexuality. "Gay" is used very differently from its primary meaning, and now generally means "stupid", "weak", or "not cool." You older folks may not have your ears to the ground as much, but go to any high school, any college, any unit, and people regularly call things "gay." Guys and girls jokingly call their buddies "fags", or when arguing, call their opponents "faggots" with some flowery language generally attached. The biggest initial problem will be for officers and senior NCOs to not only completely clear their own lexicons of such words, but to stop their soldiers from doing so as well. I honestly feel that in the first few years there will be a metric sh*t ton of EO violations (reported or unreported). Just like one would not be able to describe something as "that's so Mexican/kikey/spicish", our military will have to wholly stop using "gay" as a pejorative. And now we get to all look forward to yet another briefing, in addition to suicide, racism, sexism, we now will get one for gay people. Super! This could potentially be the catalyst that results in civilian society no longer using "gay" or "fag" in such a wide variety of situations with zero relation to homosexuality. In two decades, I wouldn't be surprised if "gay," the most commonly used (intended) insult in America, was used far more rarely and less publicly.
The following thought will have to be taken with a grain of salt, as I am only an Army ROTC cadet at the moment whose only real military experience was training with an infantry unit, LTC, and my closest friends all being enlisted personnel. With that caveat said, the only other potential problem I could envision with the repeal of DADT is within combat units. From the literature I have read on the subject of infantrymen in prolonged periods of combat, two or more lovers in combat together seems like a recipe for flawed decision making. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, as I would say the same for men and women subjected to such a situation in Armor and Infantry. However, women are not able to be in either of those branches so the point is void.
I just spent the last 20 minutes skimming this thread and could find only one brief allusion to the history that prompted restrictions in the first place. That was by Bob's World. The history that prompted the restrictions is something that should be considered. I don't know what it is but the rules came from somewhere and were created for some reason.
I don't think using prisoner culture is useful. There is nothing normal about a prison culture, especially the inmates. If they were normal they wouldn't be in there.
Slap: I've heard those arguments. Some of them would insist on making them right up until the time I said goodbye after dropping them off at the county jail.
It is worth pointing out that DADT itself can have a negative impact on soldier performance and unit cohesion, by forcing gay and bisexual soldiers to choose between integrity and service. Like it or not, relationships are a large part of peoples' lives--soldiers' lives--and like it or not, the military does recognize and account for this fact in its dealings with soldiers. A straight soldier who is having relationship issues has many avenues within the military to seek assistance or just let off steam. He can bitch about his problems to his buddies, he can talk to his chain of support, he can get legal assistance, he can get advice from the chaplain. A gay or bisexual soldier has access to none of these sources of support if he or she is having problems. Something as simple as making car payments can become a problem--if a gay soldier's boyfriend back stateside forgets to drop a check in the mail, the soldier is going to start getting mail about it, and if it goes on long enough, that soldier is going to face UCMJ action. That soldier has strikingly limited options for dealing with the situation, whereas a straight soldier can get help from many quarters.
Ever done six months on a ship or submarine? For my first cruise in the Navy my berthing had 150 people crammed inside the square footage of a typical family home. There's lots of gay jokes, lots of very frank talk about spanking the monkey, but very, very, very little sex either gay or straight - at least on board ship. Port calls are altogether different.Quote:
The fact is that we put our service members in situations very similar to the ones we put our convicted felons in. Over the past couple of generations we have stripped away the access to local women, cheap booze, and even pornography in the pursuit of zero defects under the guise of puritanical righteousness.
damn I just missed the sky falling (again).
Perhaps we're just wired differently from yáll but there is no evidence whatsover of this occuring down here (if anything the thing that keeps getting us in the #### is hetro acts couypled with alcohol abuse) and we've allowed gay relationships for years.
Perhaps your question relates more to the education and maturity of your diggers ... prison population = lowest common-denominator in terms of education, experiences etc. If you're equating your soldiers with that group I'm glad I serve in an Army it's bloody hard to get into in the first place.
has been more my sentiments than anything else. My research on DADT has been pretty much limited to Randy Shilts (unfortunately deceased from AIDS), Conduct Unbecoming, Gays & Lesbians in the US Military (1993) - now ancient history, but a decent historical presentation.
While DADT is in the process of repeal (it's not quite immediate), Article 125:
has not been repealed - it might be, but that is not a sure thing. And, Article 134 will continue in effect; no doubt about that.Quote:
ART. 125. SODOMY
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.
So, this (about halfway down) may happen:
BTW: An otherwise uncorroborated admission of guilt is not sufficient absent other proof of the crime; but the facts could be supplemented rather easily (the condom salvaged from the garbage plus forensics on the residues) to come up with an Article 125 charge that would hold up.Quote:
Commander: Troop, it has been long suspected that you are gay.
Troop: Why yes I am a gay male.
Commander: Very good, as you know you are now allowed to serve openly in the military.
Troop: Thank you sir for bringing it to my attention, I have followed this issue very closely.
Commander: Troop I must discuss with you about sexual activities within the military as a matter of Public Health. As you know the use of condoms prevents the spread of sexual transmitted diseases. You and your partner use condoms when having sex?
Troop: Yes sir, I take the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases very seriously and always use condoms.
Commander: First Sarge[a]nt.
First Sarge[a]nt: Yes sir.
Commander: Would please advise this troop of his rights before we proceed with a Court Martial for violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ.
Troop: But sir I can serve openly in the military. What did I do wrong?
Commander: Troop you have admitted to having sex. Homosexual sex acts are still a violation of the UCMJ. This is a violation of the UCMJ article 125 and 132[134] and you will also be prosecuted for sodomy and conduct unbecoming.
Regards
Mike
I agree with some of what Bob's World wrote.
The main thing that gets me is the assertion by those in favor of the repeal that homosexuals have some "right" to serve in the military.
I don't see any such right.
I also see no benefit to the military.
Mike,
Hyvää huomenta !
You never cease to amaze me... but condom salvaging :D
I agree with Spud, it's a matter of education and professionalism. We (those that joined in the early 70's) saw rampant racial discrimination and drug abuse. For some reason no one bothered with sexual orientation then - just wasn't high on the list.
Regards, Stan
I can only hope that you were drunk when you wrote this. This sort of hysteria is - almost - unbelievable coming from a retired O-6 and someone whose intellect and insight is supposedly worthy of advising the defense community.
By no means do I consider myself a gay rights activist, but if you're going to oppose the repeal of DADT, and if you are going to attach your own name and profile to it, then please come up with an argument that is a bit more becoming of someone that has more than a grade school education gained in Appalachia in the 1950s. This logic reflects poorly upon the quality of intellect recruited to the think tank listed in your profile. If I were the director and saw this post, I'd have reservations about the quality of work I could expect. It isn't a question of pro- or anti-gay. But "squad boys"... really? The imagined scenario is an insult not to gays, but to the NCOs and officers still serving in the military that are more than capable of maintaining good order and discipline in difficult times. Your implications disgrace us, and not due to homosexuality, but due to the fact that such an ignorant point of view would be projected onto us.
You would be surprised how many otherwise very intelligent people can hold the most patently ridiculous thoughts regarding homosexuality. My best bud is about to make e6 and he's truly one of the most well read, intelligent, and thoughtful guys I know, but homosexual-anything is abhorrent to him. Gay marriage? Hell no. Gays in the military? Just as bad.
To the guy who fear-mongered with "squad boys", all I can say to you is "LOL" and thank god I never have a chance of seeing you in my chain of command. Seriously, thank you for the LOL. If this were any website but small wars journal I would have figured you for a pretty poor troll. I guess you haven't had one of the myriad EO violation classes forced upon you recently. You know, the level of boring on par with reading the Bible for hours. The briefings CLEARLY state that there will be absolutely severe repurcussions for anyone who uses sexual favors to gain power above or under another soldier. And then there's the whole most-people-aren't-gay-and-even-if-they-were-they-probably-wouldn't-be-inclined-to-####-a-pass-around-"boy" thing.
This reminds me of the first offical briefing I received on homosexuality within the military. It was a from a O5. She briefed the class that homosexuals cannot serve in the military, and because it deeply offended her Christian sensibility. I wondered what the hell her religious beliefs had to do with anything.
I think denial of access to local women and cheap booze is an excellent idea, and in many places necessary. That stuff easily gets way out of hand... does anybody else remember Olongapo City when the fleet was in Subic? Good fun for some, but causes some real complications with the host country government and populace. There have been incidents involving US troops in the Philippines could easily have been avoided if cheap booze and local women were not on the menu.