Gettin' pussy in the military?

gallantwarrior

Gold Member
Jul 25, 2011
25,746
7,617
280
On my own 200 acres of the Frozen North
Article 125 was ridiculous and very rarely enforced.

Besides how stupid it was to have blows jobs against the ucmj, it needed to be done to accommodate open homosexuality in the service.

Expect something to be done to keep bestiality against the ucmj
 
Here's the bill as passed by the Senate.

Show me where it says to eliminate Article 125. I can't find it.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

You linked to the search results, so that link no longer works. You need to link to the actual bill.
Here's the pdf: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310eas.pdf
Article 125 is not repealed. In fact Forcible Sodomy under Art 125 is specifically mentioned as a covered offense in rape/sexual assault prevention.
 
Last edited:
Show in the actual bill where it does that. I can't find it anywhere.

Look it up yourself, fudgepacker. I'm not your fucking secretary

You're the one saying it's in there. I did look it up and there's absolutely nothing about repealing Art 125. CNS is lying. If you want to say they're not lying, prove me wrong.

And I would want a competent, intelligent person as my secretary.
 
Senate bill S 1867 did indeed repeal Article 125, but when reconciled with the House version, HR1540, the language repealing Article 125 (pg 174 of the House bill), was removed. So I guess all the barracks rats will be safe a while longer.
 
Well, Congress has really gone off the deep end this time. They voted to repeal Article 125 of the UCMJ. Now when your roommate tells you he's getting a little pussy or a piece of ass, his girlfriend is a dog, or her date was a pig, you'll have to wonder. Just remember, you can't ask, though.

No Senator Spoke Out Against Repeal of Military's Ban on Sodomy and Bestiality | CNS News


CNS: A publication of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to fighting "liberal bias" in the media. It's primary source of funding has been the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Media Research Center - SourceWatch

Harry Bradley was a charter member of the John Birch Society, along with David Koch, the father of those two brothers who just spent billions trying to buy the last election.

In other words, CNS has an interest in inflammatory "journalism" which portrays the "left," or our President, in a bad light.

Always...ALWAYS....consider the source and what axes they may have to grind.
 
Well, Congress has really gone off the deep end this time. They voted to repeal Article 125 of the UCMJ. Now when your roommate tells you he's getting a little pussy or a piece of ass, his girlfriend is a dog, or her date was a pig, you'll have to wonder. Just remember, you can't ask, though.

No Senator Spoke Out Against Repeal of Military's Ban on Sodomy and Bestiality | CNS News


CNS: A publication of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to fighting "liberal bias" in the media. It's primary source of funding has been the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Media Research Center - SourceWatch

Harry Bradley was a charter member of the John Birch Society, along with David Koch, the father of those two brothers who just spent billions trying to buy the last election.

In other words, CNS has an interest in inflammatory "journalism" which portrays the "left," or our President, in a bad light.

Always...ALWAYS....consider the source and what axes they may have to grind.

The source is credible, your objection irrelevant. Do you favor bestiality?
 
Well, Congress has really gone off the deep end this time. They voted to repeal Article 125 of the UCMJ. Now when your roommate tells you he's getting a little pussy or a piece of ass, his girlfriend is a dog, or her date was a pig, you'll have to wonder. Just remember, you can't ask, though.

No Senator Spoke Out Against Repeal of Military's Ban on Sodomy and Bestiality | CNS News


CNS: A publication of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to fighting "liberal bias" in the media. It's primary source of funding has been the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Media Research Center - SourceWatch

Harry Bradley was a charter member of the John Birch Society, along with David Koch, the father of those two brothers who just spent billions trying to buy the last election.

In other words, CNS has an interest in inflammatory "journalism" which portrays the "left," or our President, in a bad light.

Always...ALWAYS....consider the source and what axes they may have to grind.

The source is credible, your objection irrelevant. Do you favor bestiality?


No, of course not.

But...what a dumb question and especially in light of the fact that you haven't even proved your original assertion yet. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
>

Just so everyone knows, consensual sodomy by adults (whether with a partner of the opposite or same sex) which has no other military impact has not been a violation of the UCMJ since 2004 as a result of United States v. Marcum from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in and United States v. Bullock from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals after the application of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case at the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>
 
Last edited:
>

Just so everyone knows, consensual sodomy by adults (whether with a partner of the opposite or same sex) which has no other military impact has not been a violation of the UCMJ since 2004 of United States v. Marcum from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in and United States v. Bullock from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals after the application of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case at the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Then the only reason to eliminate Art 125 would be to make bestiality legal in the military.

(I suspect that someone, somewhere, with a lick on 'em clued Congress into the little info you just provided, so they withdrew that clause from the proposed legislation.)
 
>

Just so everyone knows, consensual sodomy by adults (whether with a partner of the opposite or same sex) which has no other military impact has not been a violation of the UCMJ since 2004 of United States v. Marcum from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in and United States v. Bullock from the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals after the application of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case at the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Then the only reason to eliminate Art 125 would be to make bestiality legal in the military.

(I suspect that someone, somewhere, with a lick on 'em clued Congress into the little info you just provided, so they withdrew that clause from the proposed legislation.)


I don't think anyone was trying to slip bestiality into the military and the language probably does need updating.

I think it was an honest effort (at least I hope so) at updating the United States Code Title 10, Chapter 47 (UCMJ) to reflect the realities that consensual sex between adults is not illegal and that it was time to update the UCMJ. Instead of updating it to make the language more appropriately apply to "forcible sodomy" as opposed to the open language that now exists which implies "consensual sodomy". They just figured it was time to remove it not realizing that there was an "or with an animal" clause.


>>>>
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top