DADT repealed

[Mike]

Oh I understand perfectly well that the military tries to remove all independent thinking, actions and emotions (including sexual). I just do think it ever has or ever will work.

 

I don't know that I'd agree with that characterization. Almost by definition, any military action requires coordinated effort, but independent thinking and creativity are actually highly valued, at least by competent commanders. Nonetheless, cohesiveness is a coveted value of the military, and experience has proven that bringing sexual interactions into the mix can really destroy cohesiveness. For example, the services all have prohibitions against fraternization between officers and enlisted members ("fraternization" has a somewhat technical legal meaning, but you get the drift). My personal observation, over a fair amount of time, is that that prohibition is logical.

 

On the other hand, the UCMJ does continue to prohibit "sodomy," defined to include oral and anal sex, but this is a violation that's hardly ever prosecuted (as is the case in a lot of civilian jurisdictions). Since the UCMJ is federal statutory law, it will be interesting to see if Congress decides to try to harmonize those provisions with the repeal of DADT.

[Bob Palin]

My objection was to his calling sodomy the "very definition of homosexuality"

[TyTass]

Clearly, it's not my bias showing here. You have merely keyed into a few words that you took out of context. Come on, admit it ... you didn't really read my posts.

 

If you had you'd know you're trying to have a disagreement with someone who agrees with you on what constitutes a homosexual relationship (i.e., love between two people of a same sex). If you still aren't sure, let me be more specific ... I am positively, unequivocably for any two consenting adults being able to engage in any relationship or sexual activity the so chose between themselves. Furthermore, I am a longtime supporter of removing all restrictions from what constitutes marriage between two humans, to apply to all sexes - same or otherwise.

 

My two previous posts on this subject of sodomy were speaking to the specific language and definitions regarding homosexual activities - as currently definined by the military (meaning sexual activities - their language not mine).

 

My original concern was that by removing DADT, this puts the military back to a place where they can again investigate any violations of Article 125, and others.

 

So, are you still offended?

[Bob Palin]

I'm always offended, it makes for better posts.

 

You are right, I wasn't reading that sentence in the context of earlier posts, I haven't gone back to check I'll just accept what you say.

 

I'm further offended however that you want to limit marriage to just two humans, if three people want to form a legal or personal contract around their living arrangements why shouldn't they?

[Ken H.]

I'm further offended however that you want to limit marriage to just two humans, if three people want to form a legal or personal contract around their living arrangements why shouldn't they?

Well Bob you do live in Utah after all!

 

[Bud]

Oh I understand perfectly well that the military tries to remove all independent thinking, actions and emotions (including sexual). I just do think it ever has or ever will work.

 

I don't know that I'd agree with that characterization. Almost by definition, any military action requires coordinated effort, but independent thinking and creativity are actually highly valued, at least by competent commanders. Nonetheless, cohesiveness is a coveted value of the military, and experience has proven that bringing sexual interactions into the mix can really destroy cohesiveness. For example, the services all have prohibitions against fraternization between officers and enlisted members ("fraternization" has a somewhat technical legal meaning, but you get the drift). My personal observation, over a fair amount of time, is that that prohibition is logical.

 

On the other hand, the UCMJ does continue to prohibit "sodomy," defined to include oral and anal sex, but this is a violation that's hardly ever prosecuted (as is the case in a lot of civilian jurisdictions). Since the UCMJ is federal statutory law, it will be interesting to see if Congress decides to try to harmonize those provisions with the repeal of DADT.

 

Lawrence v. Texas prevents local jurisdictions from enforcing those laws.

[TyTass]

Great response! Too funny!

 

To answer your last question ... I don't know, probably because I prefer things in pairs? [Yes, feel free to go to the gutter with that one!] On the serious side, again I don't really care what people do as long as they consent to it. Of course there are two difficulties there:

 

1) The more people we add into this whole legal contract issue the more tangled the legal ramifications become

 

2) What constitutes consent? And that's even more difficult because there are some (and I won't mention who) who believe there is no objective reality, that all concepts are relative - which must include communication!

[Bob Palin]

1) The more people we add into this whole legal contract issue the more tangled the legal ramifications become

 

2) What constitutes consent? And that's even more difficult because there are some (and I won't mention who) who believe there is no objective reality, that all concepts are relative - which must include communication!

1) Exactly, that's why the government needs to get out of the relationship business altogether (I expect full support here for this idea - smaller government!)

2) Not going there, even relatively.

[Bud]

1) The more people we add into this whole legal contract issue the more tangled the legal ramifications become

 

2) What constitutes consent? And that's even more difficult because there are some (and I won't mention who) who believe there is no objective reality, that all concepts are relative - which must include communication!

1) Exactly, that's why the government needs to get out of the relationship business altogether (I expect full support here for this idea - smaller government!)

2) Not going there, even relatively.

 

1. Are you suggesting that even the tax code be changed to keep the government out of the relationship? i.e. Same rate for married couples as singles, no deductions for children (another relationship), no child care credits etc?

[Bob Palin]

As far as married v single rate, yes absolutely.

 

Children are a little more complex but I think the extra cost to society of people having children is balanced by the need of society to continue, so the people who choose to have the children should pay for them. (I think everybody now knows how to avoid having children, it's not the beans people!). I would however make all education free because once the inevitable children are present it pays society to educate them as well as possible.

[Bud]

I'm always offended, it makes for better posts.

 

You are right, I wasn't reading that sentence in the context of earlier posts, I haven't gone back to check I'll just accept what you say.

 

I'm further offended however that you want to limit marriage to just two humans, if three people want to form a legal or personal contract around their living arrangements why shouldn't they?

 

Am I the only one that see the humor in that question from a resident of Utah?

 

Of course a student of Utah history knows that polygamy was outlawed in Utah so they could achieve statehood. But we all know that doesn't mean it isn't practiced even today. Most of the time law enforcement leaves well enough alone, but from time to time when a polygamy husband dares the government to do something, they are forced to. Not too long ago we had that take place with the wholesale removal of children from their homes.

 

I'm just too darn stupid to understand why a man would want more than one wife, but you all know I'm not the brightest bulb on the bike.

[Dave McReynolds]

why a man would want more than one wife

 

Depends on whether you're talking sequentially or concurrently.

[Bob Palin]

Just FYI even though I live in Utah I'm not LDS, not married, not gay, not bi, just Bob.

 

Most of the Mormon polygamy, which the main stream church does not approve of, seems to take place in Arizona and Texas.

[Bud]

Never presumed you were anything other than just Bob (and sometimes Killer).

 

Some history of polygamy.

[Bud]

why a man would want more than one wife

 

Depends on whether you're talking sequentially or concurrently.

 

Good one!

 

Sometimes my first wife asks the same question.

[Twisties]

There is plenty of polygamy here too.

 

I have no problem with consenting adults making whatever living arrangements they like.

 

The problems with the brand of polygamy practiced in these parts relates to the treatment of the offspring, property rights, and fundamental human rights. As well a culture of welfare fraud, records fraud, and other financial crimes pervades these communities (and are necessary to their existence). Polygamy as a formal and uniform cultural practice, as opposed to tolerance of polyamory along with the various forms of monogamy in a mixed practice society are very different things.

 

Polygamy in this context produces an excess of males which must be offloaded onto a greater society. This form of culture depends on, and can only exist as a subculture of a larger society.

[Bob Palin]

I agree with you Jan, the 'polygamy' practiced by people like Jeffs is clearly a form of human rights abuse and cannot be tolerated.

[Dave McReynolds]

Polygamy in this context produces an excess of males which must be offloaded onto a greater society. This form of culture depends on, and can only exist as a subculture of a larger society.

 

Another thing that can cause an excess of males is selective breeding, or selective abortions, or selective elimination of female babies by other means, which apparently has been the case in some Asian countries for several generations, if not more.

 

Apropos of nothing whatever, deer, elk, and the other vension species insist that polygamy is the only way to go. The alpha deer runs himself ragged keeping track of his harem, while the other deer go off by themselves and drink, smoke, tell lies, and occasionally sniff around the herd to see if the alpha deer is paying attention to bidness.

[bayoubengal]

 

Oh I understand perfectly well that the military tries to remove all independent thinking, actions and emotions (including sexual). I just do think it ever has or ever will work. Any more than it has in the Catholic church.

 

With all due respect I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this statement.

 

On a side note thanks for the congratulatory comments here and all the private messages I received regarding my promotion. I truly appreciate you guys.

[Matts_12GS]

Oh I understand perfectly well that the military tries to remove all independent thinking, actions and emotions (including sexual). I just do think it ever has or ever will work. Any more than it has in the Catholic church.

 

With all due respect I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this statement.

+1

 

The D-Day museum there in Nawlins has a placard on one of the exhibits of troops overrunning a pillbox at Normandy. The sign is a quote from one of the German commanders there, and he cites the intellect and creativity of the American non-commissioned officers for actually winning the engagement. I don't recall it verbatim, (although I have a photo I'll try to dig up), but the gist was that when American squad officers were killed (favorite target of German gunners) the next in line would pick up the squad and move them to the next rally point. This went on successively often through many iterations. Conversely, when a German officer was killed, his subordinates quite often were rendered without any idea of what to do tactically or strategically and usually surrendered.

[Couchrocket]

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission.

Slight hijack, but me too. To me the policy has faint echoes of the mess the Catholic church finds itself in. Trying to prevent basic human interactions by dictatorial policy always ends badly.

 

You haven't been in the military, have you? It is, by definition, not a democracy, and members of the U.S. military do not enjoy the full range of rights that civilians do. First, all military members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Years ago, a clear "service connection" had to be established to charge an individual at court-martial, but that rule was abandoned long ago. Now, one's active duty status is enough to confer UCMJ jurisdiction. While constitutional principles still apply in the broad sense, acts that would be constitutionally protected for civilians are often not protected if you're in the military. For example, bad-mouthing your boss; that might get you fired if you're a civilian, but could get you imprisoned if you're a military member. So, I'd abandon any thought that "private" conduct is beyond the purview of the UCMJ. It just isn't so, and never has been.

 

Got 'cha! I spent 3 years in the Army, one of which was in the Northern half of South Vietnam Nam in sunny Southeast Asia in 1966-67 making sure that the commies didn't come ashore in Redondo Beach, CA and destroy democracy in the US of A.

 

My arguement, which I'm sure many here will support ( even though I don't ) is that there is no need for the double standard of the UCMJ and that the UCMJ is, in fact, unconstitutional. That's where we're headed and the sooner we get there the sooner we'll be a gonner on the world scene - which "would" suit me just fine.

 

My tongue was fully planted in my cheek in my first post. The fact that others resonated to it is all the evidence you need to know that my perception & pessimism is well founded.

[Mike]

Also, I have serious doubts about the military's right to promulgate regulations about who copulates with whom. It is well beyond the purview of the military's mission.

Slight hijack, but me too. To me the policy has faint echoes of the mess the Catholic church finds itself in. Trying to prevent basic human interactions by dictatorial policy always ends badly.

 

You haven't been in the military, have you? It is, by definition, not a democracy, and members of the U.S. military do not enjoy the full range of rights that civilians do. First, all military members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Years ago, a clear "service connection" had to be established to charge an individual at court-martial, but that rule was abandoned long ago. Now, one's active duty status is enough to confer UCMJ jurisdiction. While constitutional principles still apply in the broad sense, acts that would be constitutionally protected for civilians are often not protected if you're in the military. For example, bad-mouthing your boss; that might get you fired if you're a civilian, but could get you imprisoned if you're a military member. So, I'd abandon any thought that "private" conduct is beyond the purview of the UCMJ. It just isn't so, and never has been.

 

Got 'cha! I spent 3 years in the Army, one of which was in the Northern half of South Vietnam Nam in sunny Southeast Asia in 1966-67 making sure that the commies didn't come ashore in Redondo Beach, CA and destroy democracy in the US of A.

 

My arguement, which I'm sure many here will support ( even though I don't ) is that there is no need for the double standard of the UCMJ and that the UCMJ is, in fact, unconstitutional.

 

Thank you for serving!

 

I disagree with your basic premise, but I'm sure that the constitutionality of various provisions of the UCMJ will be reviewed in the future. However, I'd doubt that the entire UCMJ would ever be declared unconstitutional. It's a creature of statutory law, and, as such, if the Supreme Court were ever to find any provision unconstitutional, the rest of the UCMJ would stand.

[TyTass]

Post deleted ...