[kenboy]

If queers in the military do not have the discipline to restrain themselves in the area of sexual perversions, what makes you think that they would have the discipline to restrain themselves to following other orders?

Once again: the UCMJ makes no distinction between "sexual perversions" committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Penetration is penetration, and if you're right -- that soldiers who ignore orders related to sex will ignore other orders -- then I expect we'll need to dismiss tens of thousands of straight soldiers who've had anal (and possibly oral) sex with their wives and girlfriends.

Because, really, if they don't have the discipline to restrain themselves from those sexual perversions with their opposite-sex partners, what makes you think they'd have the discipline to restrain themselves to following other orders?

[Lucky Dog]

Because, really, if they don't have the discipline to restrain themselves from those sexual perversions with their opposite-sex partners, what makes you think they'd have the discipline to restrain themselves to following other orders?

Perhaps you missed posts #230, #190 and #185. Care to read them and repost a cogent reply... especially the part about blood borne pathogens and the added, unnecessary threat that such pose on the battlefield?

Maybe you could also expound upon how monogamous sexual relations (of any type) with one's faithful spouse contributes to this threat. Perhaps you could also explain why the individual who was the subject of the original article on this thread did not subject himself such potential consequences by his admitted actions.

While your at it, explain how this man commander is going to explain to one of the fellow service members of queers why they should put their own lives and that of their wives at risk to render first aid to this man and other like him if he is wounded in action.