[Lucky Dog]

As I said in an earlier post: “Any sexual activity, except rape, is purely voluntary. Consequently, the inescapable conclusion from their own words, is that these officers violated the UCMJ by engaging in sodomy.”

Nobody is, anymore, a homosexual for tendencies (orientation) from which no actions result than someone is a rapist for lust that produces no rape. In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a “homosexual.” These officers implied through their own words that they had engaged in homosexual activities.

As to the activities you cited, to wit: “homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation,” a “kiss” is not, in, and of itself, “homosexual” nor does “mutual masturbation” involve “penetration.” Nonetheless, both of the activities, especially “mutual masturbation” may be judged to “conduct unbecoming” and still a violation of the UCMJ although not specifically Article 125.

The fact remains that these officers swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Admitting that they violated the UCMJ is a violation of that oath and thus their “false swearing” is dishonorable and that is also a violation of the UCMJ.

[Looking for Diogenes]

In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a ?homosexual.?

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. Most folks consider themselves heterosexual because they are attracted to the opposite sex, not because they regularly participate in sexual activities. Is a virgin teenage boy with pinups on his walls not a heterosexual because he hasn't had sex yet?

Same goes for gay guys, from what I understand of the world. They're gay because they are attracted to men, not because they've done anything about it. They'd still be gay even if they had a wife and thought about guys while having sex with her.