I didn’t refer to the code of conduct meaning “ever”. Obviously I have family who are military and who interact normally at home quite often. There are plenty of incidences with which heterosexual individuals commit misconduct and are punished for it, because the military does not want to have to deal with lawsuits.
As I noted from the CMR’s statistics that you linked me to, pregnancy of the personnel or sexual misconduct between personnel were listed at decent portions out of the total disciplinary discharges. There are certainly standards for sexual conduct, and indiscretion, and it certainly is a punishable offense from the discharge statistics, if not, people would not receive the discharges for it.
Allen West wasn’t entirely PC in what he said. He did make the point that discretion and self-control were a standard, and he was also true to say that homosexuality does not forbid someone from being in the military. It certainly is for a great deal of the soldiers who serve, with few exceptions. The conduct, even as he mentioned, was not governing home, it was about combat duty.
You and I probably agree that the people who should be in the military are there because they really are making serious sacrifices and commitments to be there. It’s not the same as civilian society.
The real part that sticks to the argument against repealing DADT, is that discharges specifically for homosexuality alone are rare. Far more often doing drugs, getting pregnant, or obesity are the reasoning behind a disciplinary discharge. Not even 1% out of thousands of disciplinary discharges are for homosexuality. That hardly makes them a super-victimized group.
Being that homosexuals consist of (at best) 4% of the entire adult population, and in the military even less, it's only natural that heterosexuals commit more offenses, which as you pointed out, aren't soley sex related. Also keep in mind that practicing homosexuals are discharged for other reasons as well (drug use is high amongst homosexual and bi-sexual men).
With that in mind, the following doesn't look too good for homosexuals in the military:
Homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals
Link to AFTAH article
Excuse me, but were you inferring that the only reason heterosexual misconduct is punished is due to fear of some lawsuit by homosexuals? (Too funny).
Allen West wasn’t entirely PC in what he said. He did make the point that discretion and self-control were a standard, and he was also true to say that homosexuality does not forbid someone from being in the military
According to this website, these are grounds for dismissal:
The member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts...; · The member has made a statement that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further approved finding that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts...; · The member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex....
Link to GI Rights article
The way I read that, is that you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt; meaning that you deny that you have homosexual "behavior" inclinations.
You and I probably agree that the people who should be in the military are there because they really are making serious sacrifices and commitments to be there.
Where you and I obviously disagree is that I don't want someone that either practices a sexual perversion, or has the inclination to practice a sexual perversion, to make those "sacrifices and commitments", as amongst other things, it will have a negative effect on the morale of other (especially Christian) soldiers.
The real part that sticks to the argument against repealing DADT, is that discharges specifically for homosexuality alone are rare. Far more often doing drugs, getting pregnant, or obesity are the reasoning behind a disciplinary discharge. Not even 1% out of thousands of disciplinary discharges are for homosexuality. That hardly makes them a super-victimized group.
DADT was never passed into law. Did you not read the link?