Gettin' pussy in the military?

[Article 15]

>

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.)

^moron

 

[Article 15]

Getting pussy in a US Military uniform is a time honored tradition, and I am fucking proud of that fact.

 

[Oldguy]

Getting pussy in the Military was so much fun.

I only have 2 words to say on that subject: The Wall.

 

[gallantwarrior]

>

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.


>>>>

A few interesting points:
How do they know that it needs to be updated unless they have read (and understood) the applicable clause?
What other language should be updated? How about adultery? Should that be expanded to apply equally to homosexuals who violate their marriage vows?

No, in their rush to further dilute military order and discipline, an to prove how wonderfully expansive and accepting they are, some of the Representatives exercised their power without any consideration to the consequences, unintended and otherwise.

 

[AmyNation]

I never knew there were men who were so against blow jobs they thought it ought to be illegal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

A few interesting points:
How do they know that it needs to be updated unless they have read (and understood) the applicable clause?

One would have hoped.

What other language should be updated? How about adultery? Should that be expanded to apply equally to homosexuals who violate their marriage vows?

Adultery does not apply because of marriage "vows", it applies to those in a state of Civil Marriage. Since under federal DOMA law two persons of the same gender are not Civilly Married in the eyes of the federal government, then if one of them was on active duty and had an affair with another person who was also single, then it wouldn't be adultery under the UCMJ which if federal law (Title 10, Chapter 47 of the United States Code).

Once DOMA is repealed and the federal government recognizes them as Civilly Married, then adultery would apply. No need to update the adultery article. It already applies to homosexuals. If a military lesbian has an affair with someones wife she can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for adultery. However since DOMA provides that homosexuals cannot be Civilly Married, that person is treated the same as any other single person.

No, in their rush to further dilute military order and discipline, an to prove how wonderfully expansive and accepting they are, some of the Representatives exercised their power without any consideration to the consequences, unintended and otherwise.

The consequences, unintended and otherwise were considered and found to be unjustified and simply fear mongering. DADT has been gone for quite awhile now and there has been no major exodus as some predicted and military order and discipline is just fine with homosexuals serving under the same terms as heterosexuals.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I never knew there were men who were so against blow jobs they thought it ought to be illegal.

I guess there were some as article 125 applied, as a function of law, to males getting oral sex from females. Although it was rarely enforced. Good thing to since we'd have probably had half the Battle Group in the brig after a port call in the Phillipines or Thailand.



>>>>

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are battalions of divorce attorneys salivating at the thought of legal unions of all types. Unlike the current, relatively simple way gay couples split the sheets, soon they will be able to share the joy of bloody divorce/dissolution litigation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are battalions of divorce attorneys salivating at the thought of legal unions of all types. Unlike the current, relatively simple way gay couples split the sheets, soon they will be able to share the joy of bloody divorce/dissolution litigation.

There is no "soon they will" concerning divorce.

Just as different-sex couples Civilly Marry and divorce (not that I'm happy with it, just a reality), then so have same-sex couples Civilly Married and divorced just like us. Since the first state authorized same-sex Civil Marriage in 2004, there has been same-sex divorce.

I've been married for over 25 years, I won't lie and say that all that time is suns and roses, there were dark times and thorns. At the core of our beings we loved each other and I hope all couples in that situation take the time, open the lines of communication, be respectful and there to support the other in times of trials and tribulations and to work through their issues.


>>>>

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are battalions of divorce attorneys salivating at the thought of legal unions of all types. Unlike the current, relatively simple way gay couples split the sheets, soon they will be able to share the joy of bloody divorce/dissolution litigation.

There is no "soon they will" concerning divorce.

Just as different-sex couples Civilly Marry and divorce (not that I'm happy with it, just a reality), then so have same-sex couples Civilly Married and divorced just like us. Since the first state authorized same-sex Civil Marriage in 2004, there has been same-sex divorce.

I've been married for over 25 years, I won't lie and say that all that time is suns and roses, there were dark times and thorns. At the core of our beings we loved each other and I hope all couples in that situation take the time, open the lines of communication, be respectful and there to support the other in times of trials and tribulations and to work through their issues.


>>>>

I know what you're saying. As much as we wish it could be true for everyone, easy divorce is another symptom of a pervasive sickness in this society.

 

[High_Gravity]

I never knew there were men who were so against blow jobs they thought it ought to be illegal.

I guess there were some as article 125 applied, as a function of law, to males getting oral sex from females. Although it was rarely enforced. Good thing to since we'd have probably had half the Battle Group in the brig after a port call in the Phillipines or Thailand.



>>>>

Whoever came up with this rule needs to be thrown off the ship by Warrior102.