• 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

Anything between opposite sex's. There's nothing that says anything between males and males, or females and females.

Unless, you can post actual documentation, of course. can you?

You are completely wrong. My entire berthing (female of course) was accused of sexual harassment by some girls in the berthing below us. I have posted this several times in the past. We were talked to by the Equal Opportunities Officer because the other girls were simply uncomfortable with our closeness, and considered it sexual harassment.

Any person can bring a charge of sexual harassment against any other person in the military or even just who works with/for the military, regardless of gender or sexuality. If a person finds a question of a sexual nature to be offensive, then they can make a legitimate claim of sexual harassment, again regardless of gender or sexuality of either person involved. If you have access to a military knowledge online site, I suggest you look up training for sexual harassment there. This has been true since I joined in '98, if not before. There is also annual required training on sexual harassment.
 
First off saying that one is a homosexual doesn't mean that one is participating in sodomy.

Homosexuality is sodomy, according to the UCMJ's definition.

Secondly, why the hell is "sodomy" between two consenting adults in the UCMJ. It has no reason to be there, the army has no business in the sexual matters of its soldiers.

That's just the way it is. Again, welcome to the real world.
 
I love people how try to argue that since they did this or that, no one else is entitled to comment on something. Please.....things aren't handled that differently in the army....its not another planet.

And, that's where you're wrong. Untold numbers of veterans have said that on this very forum, yet you and those like you refuse to listen.
 
Homosexuality is sodomy, according to the UCMJ's definition.



That's just the way it is. Again, welcome to the real world.

Please tell us, why you see no reason to change this? That may be the way it is, but it doesn't stop me from wanting this ignorant, and homophobic policy changed.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality is sodomy, according to the UCMJ's definition.

That's just the way it is. Again, welcome to the real world.

So is fellatio, cunnilingus, and anal sex between a man and a woman.
 
Do you see how that matches to your scenario? I would think the exact same thing would happen.



If the company commander and platoon leader were straight? Probably not. If they were gay? It would be sexual discrimination, same as the example that I gave.

As I've explained to you before, you speak from an uninformed/inexperienced position. You're making a comparison between the military and civilian life and they are most definitely two different things.
 
As I've explained to you before, you speak from an uninformed/inexperienced position. You're making a comparison between the military and civilian life and they are most definitely two different things.

What are you talking about? Every scenario I have mentioned is military in context.
 
You are completely wrong. My entire berthing (female of course) was accused of sexual harassment by some girls in the berthing below us. I have posted this several times in the past. We were talked to by the Equal Opportunities Officer because the other girls were simply uncomfortable with our closeness, and considered it sexual harassment.

Any person can bring a charge of sexual harassment against any other person in the military or even just who works with/for the military, regardless of gender or sexuality. If a person finds a question of a sexual nature to be offensive, then they can make a legitimate claim of sexual harassment, again regardless of gender or sexuality of either person involved. If you have access to a military knowledge online site, I suggest you look up training for sexual harassment there. This has been true since I joined in '98, if not before. There is also annual required training on sexual harassment.

Hence the reason that I've stated in the past that the abolition of DADT will cause sexual harassment cases in the military to sky-rocket. Thank you for proving my point.
 
Please tell us, why you see no reason to change this? That may be the way it is, but it doesn't stop me from wanting this ignorant, and homophobic policy changed.

Whom said I see no reason to change it? I've only said that that is how things are, according to the UCMJ.
 
That's exactly right.

Adultery is a violation of the UCMJ as well.

Do you honestly think that not a single heterosexual active duty service member has ever participated in those sexual activities? I ask because heterosexuals are not held to the same sexual standard of conduct as homosexuals. How many heterosexual active duty service members do you know of that have been tried and convicted of participating in sodomy?
 
Admitting to sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ. Do you want them to be treated just like any other soldier who violates the UCMJ?

Which is why it is good to include changing the UCMJ sodomy laws, along with the repeal of DADT. Both are being looked at, not just repealing DADT. Most likely, the military will do both after their study is concluded, not just one.
 
Which is why it is good to include changing the UCMJ sodomy laws, along with the repeal of DADT. Both are being looked at, not just repealing DADT. Most likely, the military will do both after their study is concluded, not just one.

I've stated, repeatedly, that that is what it's going to take, but I've been told, repeatedly, that I'm ****ed in the head.
 
Do you honestly think that not a single heterosexual active duty service member has ever participated in those sexual activities? I ask because heterosexuals are not held to the same sexual standard of conduct as homosexuals. How many heterosexual active duty service members do you know of that have been tried and convicted of participating in sodomy?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Don't misunderstand.
 
But, in the civilia workplace, the standard of enforcement would be different.

OK. But I'm not talking about a civilian workplace. Every thing I've stated relates to the military... which is what we are discussing.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you. Don't misunderstand.

So you have no problems with homosexuals serving in the military? I ask because you pointed directly to the UCMJ's statute against sodomy.
 
Hence the reason that I've stated in the past that the abolition of DADT will cause sexual harassment cases in the military to sky-rocket. Thank you for proving my point.

WOW!!

Well, since this happened about 6 years ago, and DADT was in place, as it is now, how do you figure this is related? The sexuality of the accused wasn't the actual reason why sexual harassment was claimed. The claim came from a difference in what is comfortable levels of friendship/space for some, and what is considered uncomfortable for others. The girls who brought the accusations up didn't really think that we were all gay, they just weren't comfortable with our closeness. The amount of closeness between men or women while in their own berthings won't change just because DADT and sodomy rules are gone. Some women will still be close with each other, whether they are gay or straight. And some guys will still "harass" other guys, especially if they are straight. Sexual harassment cases will only increase if some people become paranoid that someone else isn't joking or isn't as platonic in their affections as they should think. If there are people actually having sex or just behaving completely inappropriately in berthings, then those incidents and the people involved should be at least counseled, if not punished, depending on the severity and legitimacy of the claim.
 
This argument reminds me of a line from GI Jane. “My grandfather wanted to be a navy man, fire the big guns on the big ships. But the only thing he could ever do was cook. We’re not talking about 100 years ago, we’re talking the US Navy at the end of WW2. You want to know the reason they said my grandfather couldn’t fight for his country. Negroes can’t see at night. They aint got good night vision. So see O’neil I know where your coming from. You’re the new person on the block, you just may have moved in a little to early.”
 
That's exactly right.

Adultery is a violation of the UCMJ as well.

But adultery can actually cause problems within the unit. Especially if two of the people are in the same unit. Even if they aren't in the same unit or a cheated on spouse isn't in the military at all, it could cause discipline and problems concerning public military appearance. Adultery can very easily lead to conflicts between a spouse who is cheated on and either the other spouse and/or the person the spouse cheated with. This can be very bad.

Sodomy, otoh, doesn't really come with such problems, unless it actually is being done in conjuction with violating another UCMJ law. Sodomy, when done in private between two consenting adults, is between those two adults. If the couple is not breaking fraternization, rape, or adultery rules, then why does it matter what sexual acts they perform?
 
But adultery can actually cause problems within the unit. Especially if two of the people are in the same unit. Even if they aren't in the same unit or a cheated on spouse isn't in the military at all, it could cause discipline and problems concerning public military appearance. Adultery can very easily lead to conflicts between a spouse who is cheated on and either the other spouse and/or the person the spouse cheated with. This can be very bad.

Sodomy, otoh, doesn't really come with such problems, unless it actually is being done in conjuction with violating another UCMJ law. Sodomy, when done in private between two consenting adults, is between those two adults. If the couple is not breaking fraternization, rape, or adultery rules, then why does it matter what sexual acts they perform?

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?
 
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?

Wouldn't the fraternization rule take care of that? That situation doesn't prove that DADT should be keep as policy.
 
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?

I'd say that it may have already happened in the history of the US Armed Forces. I don't have any proof, since it's unproveable, but it doesn't mean it couldn't have already happened.
 
Back
Top Bottom