Wow I had totally forgotten about this topic until I saw a new thread started about it.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Thanks for that Top.

See the affirmation of the very last paragraph posted here is refuted by the evidence from our allies and other armed forces that allow gays to serve openly with no deleterious effects.

was your response to

Originally Posted by DTop

"The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons...who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, [which] would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order, and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

bulldogg there is something you have to keep in mind when speaking of the different military services, I will put it in two words: Cultural differences. Same as the subject of legalization of whatever kinds of drugs. What works in one society may not or will not work in another.

I am in the Marine Corps, I have worked side by side with people that are gay and they are just as apt as a straight person to do very well or very poorly.

I feel that many of my arguments posted for or against are valid arguments. However you may see them, be it weak or strong, is of course a matter of opinion. I still stand by this as the strongest point for my argument: A man can not be a practicing homosexual in the military without putting himself at risk of a courts-martial and subsequent penalties and punishments. My reasoning is thus:

Article 125—Sodomy
Text.

“(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.

(I agree when you say it is worded one way but seems that it is used another.)

As it may apply to others who are not gay, yet engage in sodomy, the below sentence sums things up and gives the Court a loophole to use if a punishment for a heterosexual is not the same as for a homosexual:

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



bulldogg you stated:

Originally Posted by bulldogg

If the wording came right out and said that it was specifically against sodomy between same sex individuals, underaged persons or Wile E Coyote I would have no beef with it.

Paragraph (a) states this fairly clearly I thought, with the exception of underage sex. This is covered under article 134 as it is stated in the lesser uncluded offenses, paragraph 1 (b). Article 125 only applies to underage sex if it involves sodomy. Otherwise Article 134 applies.

I am not sure if you understood the article in it's entirety or just got a little wrapped around the axle on parts of it. I mean no disrespect. I had to read it a couple times to be sure of what was meant when they listed the lesser offenses.


They go on in a later part of the article for explanation of what is considered carnal copulation:

Explanation.

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.


On another note here is an article you all may find interesting that speaks directly with the subject of Artcile 125 of the UCMJ http://www.metrog.com/interact/jmcgo...26_sodomy.html


I have no strong opinion one way or the other in regards to gays serving in the military. I can take it or leave it and be happy either way. All I am saying is that the law needs to be rewritten IF they decide to set aside the "dont ask dont tell" policy and allow gays into the military openly. Otherwise they are setting people up for failure.

Originally Posted by Darcia

I see no reason to ban them, despite what some Politicians (*CoughMaineCough*) there is no so called 'gay-gene' that would stop them from doing thier duties.

Yeah, but what if they scratch they fingernail during combat?

Just kiddin. After all, this would pose the same problem to a metrosexual

I don't see a problem with battymen being in the military at all.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

As research into the history of homosexuality has come to light we've found much homosexuality in the ancient armies such as the Theban Sacred Band who where the Army Rangers of their city-state and was composed of 150 pairs of male lovers.

So there is no historical evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any less capable of warfighting, only cultural perceptionary problems.

Yeah, apparently homosexuality was prevalent among the troops of ancient Sparta. And they kicked all of Greece's asses and even conquered Athens!

Not to mention Alexander of Macedonia.

Life is a funny old thing, it all sounds so easy to come up with right answers but it is not. Now as we are all different how people approach this thing is again totally different and what works for one person does not work for another. Personally I feel what they do off the camp is one thing but what they on it should be another. there was a case last year where a sergeant in the British Army had a sex change and went from being a bloke to being a woman. Now when he turned up to take a parade all the soldiers came out on parade in drag with full make up and carrying handbags. The Sergeant complained to his CO who fell of his chair laughing so he took them to a tribunal for sexually harassment as the CO had failed to support him and the complaint later died a death. Well what I am getting at there are some things you can do and some things that people will not accept so just who is wrong.

When I was in the service, we were held to a standard while off duty as well as on duty. A member of an armed force is considered on duty (recall) for the length of their service. An officer is held to a standard such that their career depends on their following a strict regimen of behavior becoming an officer. In most services, there are also "codes" of conduct even within a Company that are unwritten but just as important as regulations or the UCMJ. I think that preferences of how a CO wants the people under him, from the 1st Sgt down to platoon Sgts, to behave and perform, naturally reflects some amount of personal pride and expectations of them. If a crooked gig line will get a trooper's pass pulled, I can just imagine how deviant behavior of any kind would affect a soldier's standing in a company of people different from him in such an important decision as sexual preference. I saw a man kicked out of Basic because he sat on his bunk and cried at night. I believe the poor guy couldn't help it because he certainly gave it a try. The more he was screamed at or threatened, the worse he got. At first, the rest of us tried to support him as much as possible and then, that concern turned to dislike because he just couldn't fit in. But, then, no one told us that life in the Army was fair.

LeEinfield I think the distinction should be stated that gays and transvestites are two completely seperate issues as far as psychiatry is concerned. I would be in favor of my armed forces booting out any dude that gets his junk lopped off.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

LeEinfield I think the distinction should be stated that gays and transvestites are two completely seperate issues as far as psychiatry is concerned. I would be in favor of my armed forces booting out any dude that gets his junk lopped off.

I think that would be a transexual, not a transvestite, but I see where you are coming from.

BUMP... here ya go Senior Chief and Prince... have a read over the previous 8 pages of this post and then feel free to let er fly ON TOPIC.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

This is not a post to deal in any way shape or form the political aspect of this issue. Rather, in light of NFL players "coming out of the closet" and other such "manly" types admitting to be homosexual I want to pose this question to those who are in uniform now or have worn the uniform in the past. Politics aside...

Is there a solid martial reason for the banning of homosexuals in the military?

If we are going to allow homosexuals on ships that will mean that we now have meat peekers in my showers. The ladies will have whatever peekers in their showers. Gay boys like men, lesbian women like women. If they are going to be allowed to get their jollies checking out each other I think I want to shower with the women on my ship, I like women!

Sounds fair to me, they get to see what turns them on and I get to see what turns me on. I"ll be taking a lot of showers, I just hope I'm on a good ship with plenty of water and no water hours!!

Gays in Uniform?

There is already a solution, its the "dont ask, dont tell" policy,

Works every time.

Originally Posted by Sukio

Gays in Uniform?

There is already a solution, its the "dont ask, dont tell" policy,

Works every time.

To be perfectly honest, that policy sucked from the day that Clinton put it into effect.