Replies

My point is that your comparisons were irrelevant because animals and 12-year-olds do not serve in uniform.

So the homosexual whose sodomy buddy isn’t in the military doesn’t count? You don’t think that’s disruptive? Your arbitrary criterion doesn’t make any sense.

I'm not sure what UCMJ says about incest,

Hehehe…you think that if UCMJ doesn’t list incest in a code that the military is above civilian law? That’s a cop out and admittedly you can’t answer the legitimate comparisons honestly.

“I can understand an infantry or armor unit not allowing homosexuals within their ranks. Whether they are gay or sad seems arbitrary. However, I do not understand why it is of any importance if office rats are homosexuals. Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?”

I thought this was simple enough. Women are not allowed in the infantry for a couple of reasons. One, they are different, physically – different enough to assume that they would not be able to handle the physically demanding job of an infantryman. Two, they are women, and men are attracted to women. This creates inevitable problems with discipline and morale. However, women are allowed in non-combat branches, because the environment is different. There are still disruptions in the workplace that will arise from romances/lusts, but the effects are not nearly as devastating as they would be in a unit that must engage in a close combat, direct fire situation.

These disruptions are accepted, since we know that they are going to occur and we still allow females to hold many specialties within the Army. But, for some reason, we do not allow homosexuals in those same positions that women are allowed to serve in. Whether it is a relationship between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, it is an office romance/lust. I fail to see any significant difference in the level of disruption that would result between two males doing whatever they do, and a man and women doing their thing. I am not an office rat, which is why I posed this as a question, “Is this any more disruptive than male and female office rats being attracted to one another?”

In spite of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I was also curious why the leadership chose to enforce this regulation. That probably sounds like a wacky question, but I think that most, if not all of us, have ignored certain regulations, for the sake of mission accomplishment. However, I am well aware that situations are not always such that a leader can selectively enforce regulations. It is even more difficult to do this, when dealing in matters regarding discipline – more so when that discipline involves personal relationships. That is why I wrote, “I know it is against policy, but sometimes leaders down at the lower levels forgo policy in the interest of mission accomplishment. I am curious why these leaders did not. They may have been right. Again, I'm just curious.”

Sheep and 12-year-olds do not fit anywhere in this. Bonaparte, in post #80, gave me the heads up on UCMJ:
“It's not specifically addressed but is prosecuted as ‘conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.’ It's the same with other deviations from standards of decency.”

To answer your original questions, no, no, and no. Now what? I still fail to see their relevance.