[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.

[kenboy]

especially the part about blood borne pathogens and the added, unnecessary threat that such pose on the battlefield

So ban those with HIV or Hepatitis or whatever else you'd like to include in that category from service. I'm fine with that. Test their blood regularly, and if they come up positive, discharge them.

Article 125 of the UCMJ, as best I can tell, was included when the UCMJ was adopted in 1951. It had nothing to do with HIV, or monogamy. Under Article 125, however, oral sex in a monogamous heterosexual relationship is just as illegal as anal sex in a polygamous homosexual one.

And I don't know, but I'd like to think that soldiers will risk their lives for their comrades because that's what soldiers do.