Gays in the military...

[MMDad]

Include sodomy in the 'etc.' part of UCMJ violations.

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....

 

[awpitt]

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....

Yep.










.

 

[MMDad]

I'd like to hear from the 2 people who voted for "more volunteers". I just wonder if that's their real opinion, or if they just thought that it looked forlorn with no votes?

I've spoken to people who seem to believe that there are legions of gays who want to join but don't because of DADT. They believe that if DADT goes away these people will join.

I see any slight increase due to DADT going away will be offset by those who are so scared of temptation that they won't join.

 

[This_person]

That includes more than a few hetero acts. Talk about a victimless crime....

Until laws are changed, does it make it any less a crime?

By the way, according to Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com, it does not include "more than a few..." It is anal and/or oral copulation, or bestiality.

 

[danjuandemarco]

Don't care if they are gay or straight, just shoot straight.

 

[MMDad]

Until laws are changed, does it make it any less a crime?

By the way, according to Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com, it does not include "more than a few..." It is anal and/or oral copulation, or bestiality.

If laws are not enforced equally are they really laws? The point is that those laws apply equally to many hetero and homo acts. The military cannot prosecute one group of people under the UCMJ if they have a policy of overlooking that crime among all of his (or her) peers.

And I can think of at least a dozen acts that meet your definition without having to even consider what you and ewe do. That's more than a few.

 

[This_person]

If laws are not enforced equally are they really laws? The point is that those laws apply equally to many hetero and homo acts. The military cannot prosecute one group of people under the UCMJ if they have a policy of overlooking that crime among all of his (or her) peers.

How is it overlooked? What enforcement mechanism is there?

 

[MMDad]

How is it overlooked? What enforcement mechanism is there?

Damn you are obtuse. You try to argue the most irrelevant, inane crap.

Article 125 was raised noting that it would still be illegal for gays to have sex. The point is that it is illegal for straights to engage in acts that most people consider normal and non-deviant. There are people who think that article 125 can be used to prosecute gays, bypassing the intent of ending DADT.

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.

Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex. It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice. Therefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.

I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I am disgusted by the thought of gay sex. It is thoroughly repulsive to me. But then again, I know some women who repulse me too. But the thought of violating someone's constitutional rights by prosecuting them for something that is allowed for their peers is even more disgusting to me.

Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?

Wouldn't life be so much better if the government just got out of the morality business all together? After all, is there any virtue in being moral if you face the threat of punishment if you aren't?

 

[n0n1m0us3]

Damn you are obtuse. You try to argue the most irrelevant, inane crap.

Article 125 was raised noting that it would still be illegal for gays to have sex. The point is that it is illegal for straights to engage in acts that most people consider normal and non-deviant. There are people who think that article 125 can be used to prosecute gays, bypassing the intent of ending DADT.

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.

Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex. It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice. Therefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.

I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.

Personally, I am disgusted by the thought of gay sex. It is thoroughly repulsive to me. But then again, I know some women who repulse me too. But the thought of violating someone's constitutional rights by prosecuting them for something that is allowed for their peers is even more disgusting to me.

Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?

Wouldn't life be so much better if the government just got out of the morality business all together? After all, is there any virtue in being moral if you face the threat of punishment if you aren't?

Well said.

 

[This_person]

Military prosecutions under article 125 for consenting adults are extremely rare. The vast majority are for forcible sodomy or for sodomy with a minor.

So, they happen only when there's some form of proof....

Article 125 does not define sodomy as same sex.

No, the dictionary does.

It defines it as anyone's genitals and anyone's mouth or butt or other orifice.

So, it's not discriminatory based on sexual orientation only

Therefore prosecuting gays for an act that is aceptable for straights is not equal protection under the law.

You realize heteros and homos are both able to be prosecuted, and have been prosecuted, then say it's not equal. See, there has to be a level of reasonable proof. Since one of the two pieces is missing for there to be non-sodomy sex in homosexuals, wouldn't that be proof?

If you argue sodomy laws are stupid, I'd agree. If you argue it would be acceptable for one and not for the other, you're wrong. It's a simple matter of enforcability.

I understand that your hate of gays makes you think that they don't deserve their constitutional rights, but you'd be wrong.

And, you are 100% wrong on what you think you understand about me!

Tell me something - why do people like you claim to be conservative, yet you want the government to enforce your brand of morality? Why do you say it's wrong to allow muslim morality to exist in America, but you want the government to enforce your religious views?

again, you just don't get me

 

[pixiegirl]

No, the dictionary does.

Wrong. I have a Webster's II New College Dictionary right here at my desk.

Sodomy - A form of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal copulation or copulation with an animal.

Says nothing about gender.

 

[bcp]

Wrong. I have a Webster's II New College Dictionary right here at my desk.

Sodomy - A form of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, esp. anal copulation or copulation with an animal.

Says nothing about gender.

having sex with the same gender is unnatural and abnormal, doesnt matter if you think its now acceptable, it is not what the organs were designed for, and regardless of how many people are engaging in the act, it is not normal.

so, the definition works with homosexuality.

 

[pixiegirl]

having sex with the same gender is unnatural and abnormal, doesnt matter if you think its now acceptable, it is not what the organs were designed for, and regardless of how many people are engaging in the act, it is not normal.

so, the definition works with homosexuality.

It works with homosexuality but is not homosexually specific which was my point. Anal sex between a man and woman just as easily fits the definition.

 

[bcp]

It works with homosexuality but is not homosexually specific which was my point. Anal sex between a man and woman just as easily fits the definition.

Yes it does.
and I have never or will I ever engage in any activity as filthy and possibly harmful as that.

But this is about homosexuality, and based on the actual biological purpose of the genitals as far as sex goes, homosexuality can only be considered as unnatural.

 

[pixiegirl]

Yes it does.
and I have never or will I ever engage in any activity as filthy and possibly harmful as that.

But this is about homosexuality, and based on the actual biological purpose of the genitals as far as sex goes, homosexuality can only be considered as unnatural.

No one is saying that homosexual sex is normal. The point MM was making was that Article 125 states the "act" not the gender or sexuality. If sodomy is illegal for 2 men its also illegal for a man/woman.

 

[bcp]

No one is saying that homosexual sex is normal. The point MM was making was that Article 125 states the "act" not the gender or sexuality. If sodomy is illegal for 2 men its also illegal for a man/woman.

yes it is. no question.

the problem here is that it is possible for a man and woman to actually be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

it is not possible on the part of two homosexuals to be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

 

[pixiegirl]

yes it is. no question.

the problem here is that it is possible for a man and woman to actually be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

it is not possible on the part of two homosexuals to be married and having sexual relations without violating that law.

Nope....

C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation eitherwith another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age.Depending upon the facts of the particular case at hand, two elements in aggravation may beadded to the requisite elements of the crime. One such element is added when the act is done with achild under the age of 16 years, and the other element is added when the act is done by force and withoutthe consent of the other person.It should be noted that the offense of sodomy may be committed between a husband andwife. Such cases, however, would be difficult to prosecute. Coltner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1968). In practical terms, it would be difficult to successfully argue that a governmental purpose forprohibiting consensual sodomy within a marriage outweighs the constitutional right to marital privacy.However, Congress has seen fit not to exempt consensual sodomy committed by husband and wife.

Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ)

 

[awpitt]

Nope....

C. Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ). Sodomy is the engaging in unnatural carnal copulation eitherwith another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal. It is considered unnatural carnalcopulation for a person to take into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of ananimal; or to place his or her sexual organ into the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; orto have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or tohave carnal copulation in any opening of the body of an animal. Part IV, MCM 1984, para 51(c). Note:consent by the victim is not a defense regardless of the victim's age.Depending upon the facts of the particular case at hand, two elements in aggravation may beadded to the requisite elements of the crime. One such element is added when the act is done with achild under the age of 16 years, and the other element is added when the act is done by force and withoutthe consent of the other person.It should be noted that the offense of sodomy may be committed between a husband andwife. Such cases, however, would be difficult to prosecute. Coltner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1968). In practical terms, it would be difficult to successfully argue that a governmental purpose forprohibiting consensual sodomy within a marriage outweighs the constitutional right to marital privacy.However, Congress has seen fit not to exempt consensual sodomy committed by husband and wife.

Sodomy (Article 125, UCMJ)

This is all true but I think BCP is trying to point out that only a man and women are physically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse in the missionary position which is not categorized as sodomy.

 

[pixiegirl]

This is all true but I think BCP is trying to point out that only a man and women are physically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse in the missionary position which is not categorized as sodomy.

Ah, got it.

 

[pixiegirl]

This is all silly and getting watered down anyway. DADT isn't about the act of sex its about sexual orientation. Is a gay man any less gay if he's celebate? Is it ok for men to "court" one another and "date" without engaging in sex acts?