• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

CriticalThought said:
Frotting, oral sex, mutual masturbation, sex toys, etc.

Or were you going for the Biblical definition of "sodomy"?
Click to expand...

Heh, you beat me to it with a more complete answer. I will admit, I had to look up "frotting". You just can never predict what you will today, but every day I do learn something new.
 
roguenuke said:
Huh???

Not sure what the heck this means.

You said earlier that they had to actually commit sodomy, attempt to commit sodomy, or admit to being gay. My article showed that you are wrong. If a gay guy was seen on a date, at a public movie theater, by someone his chain of command, and he was just holding hands with the guy, then he could be discharged, whether they had or planned on having sex at all. This is highly unfair, since a hetero couple can do the exact same thing without worrying about getting discharged for it.
Click to expand...

Carrier navy thinks alike. And between us we have more military experience than apdst. Actually, you may have more experience than him and I together by yourself.

Remember though...brownshoe > blackshoe
 
CriticalThought said:
Frotting, oral sex, mutual masturbation, sex toys, etc.

Or were you going for the Biblical definition of "sodomy"?
Click to expand...

Take some time to read Article 125 of the UCMJ and you'll learn--much to your amazement I'm sure--that oral sex is considered sodomy.

Let me educate you:

“(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) [/b]Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.[/b]”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus [/b]the sexual organ of another person[/b] or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
Click to expand...

The actual law totally kills your argument.

I must post a correction: I posted Article 134 as the article that forbids sodomy, but it is Article 125.
 
In all that bolding, you did not manage the note the part that is key:

Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
Click to expand...

Penetration is required.
 
Redress said:
Carrier navy thinks alike. And between us we have more military experience than apdst. Actually, you may have more experience than him and I together by yourself.

Remember though...brownshoe > blackshoe
Click to expand...

How long were you in the Navy?

You may have more cobined time in service, but not more combined knowledge, because you obviously don't know what the UCMJ actually says.
 
Redress said:
In all that bolding, you did not manage the note the part that is key:



Penetration is required.
Click to expand...

Negative. Please, re-read the article.

But, obviously, there's not much, short of kissing that isn't considered sodomy.
 
apdst said:
How long were you in the Navy?

You may have more cobined time in service, but not more combined knowledge, because you obviously don't know what the UCMJ actually says.
Click to expand...

I knew the article you referred to was 125 not 134 before you. I supplied much more factual information than you and provided links, and I did not miss the requirement for sodomy that you skated past. You are, once again, wrong.
 
Redress said:
I knew the article you referred to was 125 not 134 before you. I supplied much more factual information than you and provided links, and I did not miss the requirement for sodomy that you skated past. You are, once again, wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where it says, "other than the sexual parts"? That must be what you're missing. Yes? I thought so.
 
apdst said:
Did you miss the part where it says, "other than the sexual parts"? That must be what you're missing. Yes? I thought so.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am confused. Where do mutual masturbation and frotting fall under that code?

Also, could you cite a few cases where heterosexual people have been discharged for having oral or anal sex?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Negative. Please, re-read the article.

But, obviously, there's not much, short of kissing that isn't considered sodomy.
Click to expand...

So why does it say that penetration is required to complete the offense? It says quite clearly that oral, anal, or penetration of any opening.
 
apdst said:
Did you miss the part where it says, "other than the sexual parts"? That must be what you're missing. Yes? I thought so.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the full statement:

or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person
Click to expand...

Note the word "opening". Note that earlier it mentioned penetration was required to complete the offense. Now put those two together.
 
CriticalThought said:
Perhaps I am confused. Where do mutual masturbation and frotting fall under that code?

Also, could you cite a few cases where heterosexual people have been discharged for having oral or anal sex?
Click to expand...

Read the part that says, "other than the sexual parts". It's not hard, even I can understand it, plus I know how the military interprets the UCMJ.
 
Ready for the cream-d-la-cream of the UCMJ which makes damn near any offense plausible, because of, "intent"?

Article 80—Attempts

I'm sure that Redress is familiar with Article 80, what with her's and someone else's combined experience...:rofl
 
Redress said:
Yes, it very much does have different rules for two otherwise identical people. If a strait mentions his orientation, no penalty, if a gay does, discharge.
Click to expand...

Like I said if you don't like the rules don't enlist....But if you do enlist obey the rules....
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said if you don't like the rules don't enlist....But if you do enlist obey the rules....
Click to expand...

So you never had sex with a woman any way but through the vagina while you were in the service?

You lead a boring life NP.
 
CriticalThought said:
So you never had sex with a woman any way but through the vagina while you were in the service?

You lead a boring life NP.
Click to expand...

No offense but unlike you I don't want to talk about my sex life here and I sure as hell don't want to know about yours........
 
CriticalThought said:
So you never had sex with a woman any way but through the vagina while you were in the service?
Click to expand...

Whether he did, or not, is irrelevant. The relevant point, is that if he did and got caught, he could have been court martialed for it.

And what does that point illustrate? It illustrates that gays are subject to the law, just like straights and not just being picked on because everyone else in the world is a homophobe.
 
Navy Pride said:
No offense but unlike you I don't want to talk about my sex life here and I sure as hell don't want to know about yours........
Click to expand...

You just did. Unless you don't obey the rules of service and are a big hypocrite. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
Whether he did, or not, is irrelevant. The relevant point, is that if he did and got caught, he could have been court martialed for it.

And what does that point illustrate? It illustrates that gays are subject to the law, just like straights and not just being picked on because everyone else in the world is a homophobe.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for those cases of heterosexuals who have been discharged for having anal or oral sex. Until I see them, I think you are full of bull****.
 
Navy Pride said:
That would be up to the congress and at the moment DADT is a long way from going away not matter what Hussein Obama says
Click to expand...

Okay fine, next time why don't you try actually answering the question posed to you instead of deflecting.
 
Navy Pride said:
Nope, your wrong.....
Click to expand...

Hey, either you obeyed the rules of service, or you didn't and you are a hypocrite. But I like to assume the best of people and that you just lived a boring life. :mrgreen:
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm still waiting for those cases of heterosexuals who have been discharged for having anal or oral sex. Until I see them, I think you are full of bull****.
Click to expand...

If they do that its probably in a hotel or in private so they are hard to catch unlike gays who get into 100 man daisy chains in bath houses in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco or Seattle......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom