• 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!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

apdst said:
In an infantry unit, that is an all male unit, the company commander and a platoon leader are ****ing, ya think it might cause problems? Probably, huh?
Click to expand...

First of all, if they are having an affair with each other, then it isn't an adultery issue, it is a fraternization issue. Well, I guess it could be an adultery issue also, if one or both was married, but it wasn't actually what I was referring to. But it proves that there are already rules in place to cover such issues.

But since I was specifically talking about adultery, I was referring to the fact that it takes at least three parties (possibly 4) for a case of adultery, since for adultery to take place a person must be married and having sex with someone else who isn't their spouse. Therefore, in most instances concerning adultery, where two people are involved in the case from the same unit, especially a combat unit, the likely scenario is actually one of the guys from the unit is sleeping with another guy's wife. Therefore, you would have two people from the same unit involved with the situation. One would be subject to the UCMJ, while the other could actually be viewed as more of a victim. It could cause major problems if the married guy found out that his fellow Marine/Soldier was sleeping with his wife, and took matters into his own hands rather than waiting for the chain of command to handle the guy.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Wouldn't the fraternization rule take care of that? That situation doesn't prove that DADT should be keep as policy.
Click to expand...

To date, there aren't any fraternization cases in combat arms units. Why interfere with their day-to-day activites with more bull****? The extra interferance would affect unit cohesion. Trust me, when I say that combat units already have enough **** to worry about, without that.
 
apdst said:
To date, there aren't any fraternization cases in combat arms units. Why interfere with their day-to-day activites with more bull****? The extra interferance would affect unit cohesion. Trust me, when I say that combat units already have enough **** to worry about, without that.
Click to expand...

Fraternization is also not just about sexual or intimate relationships. Fraternization can involve simply a close friendship or inappropriate business arrangement. So, there probably are at least a few fraternization issues in combat units now.
 
apdst said:
To date, there aren't any fraternization cases in combat arms units. Why interfere with their day-to-day activites with more bull****? The extra interferance would affect unit cohesion. Trust me, when I say that combat units already have enough **** to worry about, without that.
Click to expand...

What interference? As long as they don't break the fraternization rules there should be no problem. Also you can't be so naive to think that this situation hasn't already happened before?

Also you still haven't answered my question regarding my scenario a few pages back, I'm waiting for your response.
 
roguenuke said:
Fraternization is also not just about sexual or intimate relationships. Fraternization can involve simply a close friendship or inappropriate business arrangement. So, there probably are at least a few fraternization issues in combat units now.
Click to expand...

Well, not really, but anyway.
 
Your Star said:
What interference? As long as they don't break the fraternization rules there should be no problem.
Click to expand...

Not yet, but when it does, there will be problems.

Also you can't be so naive to think that this situation hasn't already happened before?
Click to expand...

I spent 12 years in the combat arms and never saw a single fraternization case. Perhaps your experience in the combat arms was different. Oh, wait!

Also you still haven't answered my question regarding my scenario a few pages back, I'm waiting for your response.
Click to expand...

I believe I've answered every question you've asked.
 
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

So you have no problems with homosexuals serving in the military? I ask because you pointed directly to the UCMJ's statute against sodomy.
 
apdst said:
I believe I've answered every question you've asked.
Click to expand...

Nope, you never answered this.

Let me give you this scenario, lets say Natalie is a soldier on leave, and she goes out to a restaurant with her girlfriend, the two are getting close, like couples do. Now another member of her unit is also at the restaurant, and spots the two, takes a photo of the two, and gives the photo to their commanding officer. Later Natalie gets discharged under the DADT policy. Do you think that this is okay? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this situation, and the fact that this would never happen to a heterosexual soldier?

Please, I'm awaiting your answer.
 
Your Star said:
Nope, you never answered this.

Let me give you this scenario, lets say Natalie is a soldier on leave, and she goes out to a restaurant with her girlfriend, the two are getting close, like couples do. Now another member of her unit is also at the restaurant, and spots the two, takes a photo of the two, and gives the photo to their commanding officer. Later Natalie gets discharged under the DADT policy. Do you think that this is okay? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this situation, and the fact that this would never happen to a heterosexual soldier?

Please, I'm awaiting your answer.
Click to expand...

As DADT stands, now, Natalie would have to actually admit to engaging in homosexual activity, which, as DADT stands now she isn't required to. Good enough??

The only way Natalie can get into trouble, is if Natalie lets her mouth overload her ass.
 
apdst said:
As DADT stands, now, Natalie would have to actually admit to engaging in homosexual activity, which, as DADT stands now she isn't required to. Good enough??

The only way Natalie can get into trouble, is if Natalie lets her mouth overload her ass.
Click to expand...

You mean much like those heterosexual soldiers that brag about commiting sodomy with members of the opposite sex and do not get charged?
 
The_Patriot said:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

So you have no problems with homosexuals serving in the military? I ask because you pointed directly to the UCMJ's statute against sodomy.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. How they are going to bypass Article 125 of the UCMJ, I don't know.
 
The_Patriot said:
You mean much like those heterosexual soldiers that brag about commiting sodomy with members of the opposite sex and do not get charged?
Click to expand...

It's fun getting hammered from both directions. Now, that is debating! :rofl
 
apdst said:
As DADT stands, now, Natalie would have to actually admit to engaging in homosexual activity, which, as DADT stands now she isn't required to. Good enough??

The only way Natalie can get into trouble, is if Natalie lets her mouth overload her ass.
Click to expand...

The photo is of them kissing, which is a homosexual act. Do you still not see the hypocrisy, the double standard, the unfair treatment? Do you understand that this would never happen to a heterosexual couple.
 
apdst said:
It's fun getting hammered from both directions. Now, that is debating! :rofl
Click to expand...

:lamo Well I'm just asking pointed questions because I don't care for the policy put into place.
 
Your Star said:
The photo is of them kissing, which is a homosexual act. Do you still not see the hypocrisy, the double standard, the unfair treatment? Do you understand that this would never happen to a heterosexual couple.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that if a hetero couple was found to be engaging in sex, with other couples and that sex included fellatio and anal sex, that they would be just as liable to be preosecuted under Article 125 of the UCMJ?

Are you willing to allow the UCMJ to be less applicable to homos as heteros? While we're on the topic of hypocrisy and all.
 
The_Patriot said:
:lamo Well I'm just asking pointed questions because I don't care for the policy put into place.
Click to expand...

You--a far right conservative--asking these questions kills the, "you beez-a-hypocrite", argument from the Libbos and the, "I'm conservative, but too cool to look like a conservative", folks.

Thank you!!
 
apdst said:
Do you understand that if a hetero couple was found to be engaging in sex, with other couples and that sex included fellatio and anal sex, that they would be just as liable to be preosecuted under Article 125 of the UCMJ?

Are you willing to allow the UCMJ to be less applicable to homos as heteros? While we're on the topic of hypocrisy and all.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand that the homosexual couple is being treated differently than a heterosexual couple? If a picture of a heterosexual Army officer kissing her husband was taken she wouldn't be discharged. But the picture of a lesbian Army officer kissing her girlfriend would cause her to be discharged. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? The double standard?

The whole sodomy rule is bull**** as well. Because to actually prove that a heterosexual couple was committing sodomy, then they either have to be A.) having sex in a public place, or B.) have someone invade their private space and take pictures, or video of them having sex. But all it takes for the homosexual couple to be ruled to having sodomy is having them kiss. Not quite fair is it?

You've never directly answered this question. So I'll ask it here
Do you think that LGBT members of the military should be allowed to serve openly, just like their heterosexual counterparts?
 
apdst said:
Well, not really, but anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes really. Fraternization is any inappropriate relationship between an officer and enlisted, a senior enlisted and junior enlisted, an instructor and student, or anyone else where the relationship could lead to an appearance of favoritism of that person. This includes both personal and business relationships. There are exceptions for preexisting relationships, but even those have to be treated carefully.

I am an E-6. I cannot get into a private business with my chiefs or officers. This would be deemed as fraternization. An enlisted person and officer or senior enlisted also cannot share an apartment. They can remain friends, as long as the relationship existed prior to the promotion(s) that separated their ranks to such a level. Technically, an officer is not supposed to privately purchase anything from an enlisted person, when he/she is in a position to even possibly have an influence on that person's career. In the Navy, it is even considered fraternization for fleet returnees in an A-school to associate outside of official instructions with students who are straight from basic training. I know this because this is why my husband cannot associate with almost his entire class. He is prior enlisted, and therefore, cannot hang out at all with those who just recently joined the military. They are not even supposed to share a cab or ride together in a POV.

Here is some more info:
Fraternization in the United States Military
Services Fraternization Policies
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Do you not understand that the homosexual couple is being treated differently than a heterosexual couple? If a picture of a heterosexual Army officer kissing her husband was taken she wouldn't be discharged. But the picture of a lesbian Army officer kissing her girlfriend would cause her to be discharged. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? The double standard?

The whole sodomy rule is bull**** as well. Because to actually prove that a heterosexual couple was committing sodomy, then they either have to be A.) having sex in a public place, or B.) have someone invade their private space and take pictures, or video of them having sex. But all it takes for the homosexual couple to be ruled to having sodomy is having them kiss. Not quite fair is it?

You've never directly answered this question. So I'll ask it here
Do you think that LGBT members of the military should be allowed to serve openly, just like their heterosexual counterparts?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the homosexual couple isn't being treated any different than a heterosexual couple?

Do you think that LGBT members of the military should be allowed to serve openly, just like their heterosexual counterparts?
Click to expand...

No more openly than a hetero couple. Let's stick with one argument.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes really. Fraternization is any inappropriate relationship between an officer and enlisted, a senior enlisted and junior enlisted, an instructor and student, or anyone else where the relationship could lead to an appearance of favoritism of that person. This includes both personal and business relationships. There are exceptions for preexisting relationships, but even those have to be treated carefully.

I am an E-6. I cannot get into a private business with my chiefs or officers. This would be deemed as fraternization. An enlisted person and officer or senior enlisted also cannot share an apartment. They can remain friends, as long as the relationship existed prior to the promotion(s) that separated their ranks to such a level. Technically, an officer is not supposed to privately purchase anything from an enlisted person, when he/she is in a position to even possibly have an influence on that person's career. In the Navy, it is even considered fraternization for fleet returnees in an A-school to associate outside of official instructions with students who are straight from basic training. I know this because this is why my husband cannot associate with almost his entire class. He is prior enlisted, and therefore, cannot hang out at all with those who just recently joined the military. They are not even supposed to share a cab or ride together in a POV.

Here is some more info:
Fraternization in the United States Military
Services Fraternization Policies
Click to expand...

Are we talking about sexual relationships, or any sorta relationship that is outside the chain of command?

Seems to me that ya'll aren't listening to each other.
 
apdst said:
Do you understand that the homosexual couple isn't being treated any different than a heterosexual couple?



No more openly than a hetero couple. Let's stick with one argument.
Click to expand...

A heterosexual can bring their significant other to command functions, whether they are married to the person or not. They can even dance and display some moderate PDA. Homosexual service members cannot. That is discrimination.
 
orion-albums-misc-stuff-picture67112122-fox-hole.jpg
 
roguenuke said:
A heterosexual can bring their significant other to command functions, whether they are married to the person or not. They can even dance and display some moderate PDA. Homosexual service members cannot. That is discrimination.
Click to expand...

So, do you serve in a combat unit? Or some pogue piece-ass-unit that doesn't even qualify with a weapon anually?

You're a nuke in F L A, right? Not a whole buncha trigger time for ya?
 
apdst said:
What unit of the RCA did you serve in? Please, be honest.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't gotten the hint already, your pre-requisite of military experience in order to take part in this debate is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom