[rogator]

"Consequently, could you please restate your objection in practical terms."

I had not stated my objection.

But now that you mention it, when I was on active duty, more than 30 years ago, the investigative folks spent a great deal of effort in ferreting out discrete homo sodomites. I have never seen them go after the hetero sodomites. If sodomy is a violation of the UCMJ, to be consistent they should have gone after both or changed the reg to say that hetero sodomy is OK.
In no way do I support the concept of admitting "in your face" perverts to our armed forces.

[Lucky Dog]

The reason the investigators behaved as you stated they did probably rests in the potential problems with homosexual behavior versus the other behaviors you referenced. There multitudinous problems with homosexual behavior, but one in particular is worthy of singular mention.

As I stated earlier: "It is exceptionally doubtful that those you postulated as violating Article 125 for reasons other than homosexuality would be subject to potential blackmail." In other words, the practicing homosexual presents a very real threat to the security of classified information that may be in their possession.