Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[motorfirebox]

These females are forced to shower with the testosterone ridden hetero males?

...oh yes and what if the Sgt Major is gay and has a particular interest in 18 year old troopies?

Both of these things already happen. There's a pretty strong likelihood that everyone in this thread has, if they've served in the military, shared a shower room at some point with a gay person. The only difference is that after the UCMJ is changed, there's a stronger likelihood that you'll be aware of it.

And as for the SGM with a hard-on for the younger crowd, come on--you're ignoring that the support and command structure have been enablers for sexual predation for decades (or longer), and you're ignoring that we've had decades to develop tools to deal with it. It isn't suddenly a problem now.

1a. Sexuality is not the issue. The issue is the inability to obey orders. Replace homosexuality with theft/being a thief. The Armed Forces permits thieves/people who have stolen to enlist, yet they are expected to obey orders (Do not violate UCMJ Article 121). A member is not discharged from the Armed Forces because he is/was a thief. They are discharged because during the course of their enlistment they failed to follow a lawful order (Article 92) and stole something (Article 121). The thief's dual loyalty is what makes him unfit to serve in the Armed Forces. This applies equally to all other chargeable offenses.
1b. Your point is that there is an arbitrary rule
1b. Response: It matters very little how you choose to describe it, it is still a rule. Any other point of view is irrelevant in the eyes of the military justice system. If we want to discuss arbitrary rules, then a better example would be the service-wide ban on accessing WikiLeaks from personal computers. Nevertheless, it is still a lawful order and service members are expected not to visit the website because it contains classified material, albeit publically available.

2a. Your point is that polls have a place in the military because soldiers have needs, opinions, and desires which when met lead to higher re-up rates.
2a. Response: A soldier's needs are always met, except in the most extreme of circumstances (cut off from resupply, sustained TIC, etc). A soldier's "wants" is another issue entirely. A military that caters to "wants" and makes policy decisions based upon polls has created a mercenary force that is driven by its desire for personal comfort and gain. This force will abandon its leader when the "wants" are cut-off/reduced or personal comfort is threatened. Machiavelli offers an more in-depth explanation, including how a good leader should interact with his military.
2b. Your point implies that "re-upping" is good for the military.
2b. Response: "Re-upping" is neither good nor bad for the military. It is amoral and does not necessarily convey a benefit to the military. Rather it is an opportunity for a service member to re-obligate themselves to the military and for the military to decide if their services are still warranted. The service member is not owed continued employment and their decision to separate does not necessarily mean that the military was a poor employer.
2c. Your point was that soldiers should shut up and serve regardless of personal opinion.
2c. Response: Partial agreement. A soldier was first a citizen who chose to enlist and to submit himself to the moral code of the Armed Forces. If the code changes during their term of enlistment and it now violates the soldier's beliefs, then they should be allowed to exit the Armed Forces without penalty. If the soldier decides that there is a greater moral good in continuing to serve, then their service should be without complaint.

3a. Your point is that there are more soldiers who engage in oral sex than gay sex and that they are not prosecuted with the same fervor.
3a. Response: There was no presentation of prosecution statistics for heterosexual "oral sex" vs "gay sex" so the point is mere conjecture (I would bet that you are correct though) and it sounds as though the JAG Corps are being accused of selective prosecutions.
"Go after" is nebulous, but I'll assume that you meant prosecute. In order to prosecute a violation, there must be proof for the elements that constitute the violation. Violations without proof for all elements cannot be prosecuted.
3b. Your point was that heterosexual and homosexual violations of Article 125 are equally unprofessional.
3b. Response: We are in complete and total agreement. Violations of the UCMJ are to be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted without regard for rank, gender, occupation, branch of service, etc.

1. The rule is a bad rule. There's no reason to keep it in place. I don't have a problem with prosecuting those who violate it, but the rule should be (and soon will be) thrown out.
2. I'm not talking about catering. I'm talking about making reasonable concessions when there's no reason not to. That's why permanent bases have Pizza Huts and KFCs and Baskin Robbins. These things aren't necessary, but there's little reason not to allow them on post and they can help keep up morale. As for re-upping, again, horse pucky. Retaining experience is, on the whole, good for any organization.
3. I am reasonably certain that the lack of prosecution for blowjobs isn't due to lack of evidence. It's due to lack of willingness to seek out evidence. With blowjobs, there is a general acceptance that the rules are stupid and prosecuting them would not only be silly, it would in all likelihood be bad for the military. Professional people, whether in the military or the civilian world, have a reasonable expectation to be allowed to lead their private lives as they see fit. Again, obviously, the needs of the military override that. I don't see the need, here.

Your position is that the rules are the rules and they should always be followed. Well, that's one way to do things, but since you're removing human judgment from the equation, you have to be extra careful that the rules actually work. Guess what? Article 125 doesn't work.