Replies

p.s. The military doesn’t use “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” lingo — it’s much more specific:

“(1) The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’”

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong Perhaps you missed part of my earlier post (reprinted below for you):

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

I think you will find that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is exactly the lingo that the military uses. Therefore, let me call your attention to a particular portion of the above cited reference: font color="red"> Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense,

You will, perhaps, note that Penetration requires an action, i.e., a behavior. Merely being attracted does not qualify.

If you re-read my posts… never mind… here is a portion (reposted for you, again):

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue and refers to a “feeling.” Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer. “Feelings” are irrelevant to voluntary, reasoned behavior.)

Now, perhaps, you will tell me, again, with which portion of my discussion you are disagreeing?

I admire your persistence and perspicacity. As for your first response, I did not need to re-read your post to recall that you defined “sodomy” from the Uniform Code. I was quoting from US law that defined “homosexual.” ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C37.txt )Your definition of “sodomy,” of course is one that works with members of the same or opposite sexes. The definition of “homosexual” is the one that is germane to our discussion. You are claiming that a homosexual is one who commits sodomy with members of the same sex. I am claiming that the US government has a different definition of “homosexual,” one that is much more consistent with the understanding of nearly everyone else I’ve met.

I’ll get to your next post in a bit...