Replies

The idea that we need the UCMJ to protect straight soldiers from gay ones in the showers is hilarious.

As I noted to another respondent in post #190: You need to read the rest of the posts on this thread. Perhaps you missed the part about blood borne pathogens... or the part about violating the UCMJ and their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the US... or the part about being subject to blackmail... or the part about lacking the discipline to follow standing orders and regulations...

The purpose of the UCMJ is to provide a consistent and just basis for the good order and discipline of the land and naval forces. Without such good order and discipline, the effectiveness of these land and naval forces at protecting our Republic from aggressors is severely compromised. Our elected representatives have judged, after due deliberations, that the contents of the UCMJ fulfils this purpose and the experience of decades has borne out their judgment.

So, how many straight soldiers have been discharged for having anal sex with their wives or girlfriends? Any? Ever?

As noted above, you need to read the rest of the posts on this thread, specifically post #185:

First, unless they are doing it public, the military has no way of knowing. If they are doing it in public, then there are other sections of the UCMJ that become operative. Second, assuming they are not doing it in public, there are no witnesses and no case. Even if a spouse decides to turn state’s evidence and accuse the other, there is no independent corroboration and, thus, no case. To my knowledge, there has never been a case brought against a military member purely for private, consensual sexual intercourse with a spouse.

First, unless they are doing it public, the military has no way of knowing. If they are doing it in public, then there are other sections of the UCMJ that become operative. Second, assuming they are not doing it in public, there are no witnesses and no case. Even if a spouse decides to turn state’s evidence and accuse the other, there is no independent corroboration and, thus, no case. To my knowledge, there has never been a case brought against a military member purely for private, consensual sexual intercourse with a spouse.

So, let's say you're a straight, single soldier, and your straight, single, civilian ex-girlfriend, who is pissed at you, wants to get you fired. Should she really be able to call your CO, tell him that you've had anal sex with her, and get an investigation opened into your violation of the UCMJ? If the law is applied equally, I suppose Army investigators will question the other soldiers to find out if you ever admitted (bragged) to having done it, and once that independent corroboration is established, you'll be cashiered.

But that's OK, because anal sex spreads blood borne pathogens.

Seriously, I think this is all ridiculous. We're fighting a global war on terrorism, but we're spending millions of dollars investigating and dismissing soldiers because of who they have sex with. As far as I'm concerned, gay or straight, if it's not someone in your unit, I don't care.