OK, you are new, so I will take it easy on you and explain this politely. Being gay is not an action. Being gay does not require sodomy. A large portion of gay people never engage in sodomy. Sodomy laws, if uniformly applied between straits and gays would be a total nonissue for gays. Don't suck a dick on base, you are probably fine. Article 125 has jack and **** to do with DADT. It's a complete and total red herring. A tiny percent of those discharged for DADT are charged with a violation of article 125.
Do you get the impression that article 125 is a bad argument? Good, because it is.
who said anything about being gay being an action? not me, of course you can be gay without having sex. However, most sex acts between homosexuals would violate art 125. (hence my you can be gay but you can't have gay sex comment) I believe jerking off another person would not technically violate article 125.
sodomy according to article 125:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person 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.
Also, article 125 is not limited to actions "on base". if you are in the military the UCMJ applies to your life 24/7, 365 a year.
so my statement is accurate.
until article 125 is amended or removed, gays might be able to serve, but they wouldn't be able to have gay sex as long as they were serving, without violating UCMJ.
is article 125 a stupid restriction? I think so. (except for the animal bit) In this case is art 125 a "bad arguement"? not at all because it accurately describes the current situation.
Perhaps if you had read more than that one single post, you would have realized I actually support gays in the military.
I was simply pointing out that even with DADT gone, gays could still be kicked out of the military based on violations of Article 125.
would a gay man have a valid complaint if when charged with 125 he claimed that hetero guys put their sex organs into the mouths/anuses of females? yes
would that change the fact that he violated art 125? no
would it be hypocritical for the military to kick out a gay person for 125 when they don't for heteros? yes
since when has life been fair? never