can a gay man serve honorably in the US military?

[KnitShoni]

What doesn't ban drinking? Article 134? Who said it did?

[Hobbs]

It does not ban drinking. Stop being obtuse. No, it says it's illegal to do things like being drunk and disorderly. Things like that do disrupt the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces. The UCMJ is NOT the end-all when it comes to military order. The US Code and other rules and regulations affect our performance of duties.

Hah, I found it on the first page: http://www.fratching.com/showpost.ph...89&postcount=6

[crashhelmet]

What is the law that states it's illegal for a homosexual to openly serve in the armed forces?

Article 134 also says it's illegal to get drunk. Well shit, looks like we no longer have a Navy or Marine Corps if we enforce that.

CH

[Hobbs]

Hobbs, it's obvious to everybody else that Smiley's statement was not a personal attack against you.

I'm confused on what your position is on gay rights. On the Minnesota Governor thread, you seemed to support same-sex marriage. But here you are defending DADT. Do you have an objection to homosexual individuals serving in the military? And if so, what is your grounds for your position?

Exactly what WH said. I didn't take it as a personal attack. I took it as an attack upon the Armed Forces. Until it's been repealed, it's still against the law for a gay man or woman to openly serve in the US Armed Forces. As such I was giving a professional perspective without injecting my own political feelings towards the topic.

Personally I don't have a problem with gay men or women serving in the Armed Forces. However, I do understand that many people serving with me do. Therefore, I have been trying to answer the problem by humoring their sentiments, since it is their kind of thinking which passed DADT in the first place.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's obvious, however, that it was a somewhat personal attack on the military in general, thus the profession part in that last post.

Moreover, the only thing Hobbs has been doing recently is pointing out what articles etc. that could potentially used to oust gays, not that they should be used.

[Ghel]

Hobbs, it's obvious to everybody else that Smiley's statement was not a personal attack against you.

I'm confused on what your position is on gay rights. On the Minnesota Governor thread, you seemed to support same-sex marriage. But here you are defending DADT. Do you have an objection to homosexual individuals serving in the military? And if so, what is your grounds for your position?


Smiley, I completely understand your pessimism, but you have to agree that this is at least a step in the right direction.

[Hobbs]

Not true, even when the senate repeals the law, the military is not required to actually, oh you know, stop enforcing it. All the current proposal does is give the military permission to change the policy, you know, when they are ready... after they complete studies and polls and more studies...

Exactly what is your problem with my profession? Gates has already mentioned that banning gay servicemembers is detrimental; so have many Chiefs of Staff. I've even been personally briefed on our responsibility as officers to make sure discrimination will be stomped out once DADT is repealed.

[smileyeagle1021]

That said, DADT has been done away with; unless the Senate has another brain-fart session.

Not true, even when the senate repeals the law, the military is not required to actually, oh you know, stop enforcing it. All the current proposal does is give the military permission to change the policy, you know, when they are ready... after they complete studies and polls and more studies...

[Hobbs]

Art. 134 applies to officers as well. How would it be illegal to use this to prosecute homosexuality?

I think perhaps I posted in one of the "Politics" threads concerning homosexuality. Grr, I'll go back through my posts and look for it for you.

[crashhelmet]

CH, I believe I addressed the topic of sodomy in the "Rape Culture" thread, and in this thread as well. Also, the UCMJ isn't the end-all for the Armed Forces. I also quoted in this thread the US Congressional Bill that created DADT (if it's not here, I posted it somewhere else here and I apologize). Furthermore, one could argue that Art. 133 and 134 apply to homosexuality as well.

That said, DADT has been done away with; unless the Senate has another brain-fart session.

If you did, I missed it. The only thing I caught was you mentioning Article 120 and what constitutes rape.

Article 133 and 134 are "Conduct Unbecoming..." One for officers and the other for enlisted. They're typically used for "we want you out but can't really find any other way" much like civilian companies use "Doesn't meet company expectations" or whatever. Do something to embarrass the service? You get one of these. Using them to boot out homosexuals would be illegal.

Back to the point I didn't make clear enough to begin with, DADT should've never been needed because even prior to it, there was nothing making homosexuality in the military illegal. Everyone against homosexuality hid behind Article 125.

CH

[Hobbs]

CH, I believe I addressed the topic of sodomy in the "Rape Culture" thread, and in this thread as well. Also, the UCMJ isn't the end-all for the Armed Forces. I also quoted in this thread the US Congressional Bill that created DADT (if it's not here, I posted it somewhere else here and I apologize). Furthermore, one could argue that Art. 133 and 134 apply to homosexuality as well.

That said, DADT has been done away with; unless the Senate has another brain-fart session.

[crashhelmet]

Getting back on topic... To answer the question(s) brought up by Ghel and Ree.

There are two basic reasons why homosexuals haven't been "allowed" in the military. Homophobia and Stereotypes. I think we've covered the homophobia topic enough in this thread, so I'll move on to the stereotype.

There is an existing stereotype that they're pussies/pansies/weak. They lack the "mental toughness" for the military. Well, homosexual men anyway.

Soldiers want to know that the person they're fighting next to will be there with them to the end. Not someone that's going to curl up into a fetal position and cry or be a deserter. This too is one of the stereotypes as to why women have not been allowed in front lines combat. This is by far is one of the biggest morale killers someone in the military can experience and as such has been unlawfully enforced.

Yes. Unlawful. There is nothing in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that bans homosexuals from serving in the military. The closest that comes to it is Article 125, which bans sodomy.

Last I checked, the legal definition of sodomy was ANY non-vaginal intercourse, between any genders. So if they're going to enforce it, they're going to need to give every serviceman or woman that's ever received or given a blow job a Dishonorable Discharge.

The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter what your orientation or gender is. If you want to defend your country, you should be given the opportunity to prove yourself. If you fail to do so, then be allowed to resign. If you make a mockery of it, you should be removed.

Cowardice and Bravery don't know the difference between male and female or gay and straight.

CH

[jackfaire]

Tempting... but I only see him every 2-5 years, and that's when the extended family that never sees each other otherwise gets together. Everyone enjoys it too much to go around deliberately starting fights.

Yeah I know about that my family traces it's roots back to uhm well lets just say I can officially apologize for the puritans. Whoops our bad.

Anyway yeah so my extended family doesn't talk to my branch very often bit of a falling out with my grandma, she didn't get married until she was 40 and she was always quietly stubborn. Last time I saw any of them was when they insisted on having a memorial for her.

[HYHYBT]

Tell him I am blowing him a kiss

Tempting... but I only see him every 2-5 years, and that's when the extended family that never sees each other otherwise gets together. Everyone enjoys it too much to go around deliberately starting fights.

[Hobbs]

I meant the Senate sub-committee. House voted though.