Based on a literal reading of the UCMJ- emphasis on the part you highlighted, many strait, monogomous, married people would be in violation...
I am still in violation.........
Even the venerable Barry Goldwater changed his views on homosexuals in the military before his death. He asked a Taiwanese General, whose military is one of the highest trained and ready to fight in the world, what his country did about gays in the military. He replied,"Nothing." They did not care, and saw it as not hampering their fighting ability at all. I was in the Marines back in the early 70's, and knew there were gay Marines then, even though the term "gay' had not yet become common usage. I knew it, we all did. They performed their military duties as well as if not better than others...........
Exactly.
Bull$hit, "Red Herring". Im raising the red flag on this one. You know darn well what is meant is this section and why its there. Dont be an ass. The army will survive this "loss" dont looserterian any sleep over this, I wont. I bet Ive got a little more invested in this argument than you do.
Redbadger said... "If you're in a foxhole and taking rounds, you don't give a damn what the guy next to you does with his gun as long as he can shoot straight with his rifle........."
You sound like someone who has never spent time in a fox hole. There is a lot more to it then "firing straight", the issue is with all the down time in between the firing. When trying to maintain discipline, the last thing they need are troups who are having or trying to have sex with each other on the battlefield. Especially considering the WAY homosexuals have sex and the lack of hygene (not showering for weeks etc..) out there, there are a host of health problems that could arise outside of HIV/stds. They also don't allow women who can "shoot straight" (sometimes better then men) on the frontlines either for the same reason, they don't want them having sex on the battlefield. It is already bad enough on the Naval ships as it is, women getting pregnant etc..