Okay, here we go.
All of this was gained from copies of the standard Army sexual briefing slide show. According to the slide show, all information is from the UCMJ MANUAL FOR COURTS MARTIAL.
920.ART.120. Subsection A) Any person subject to the UCMJ who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife or male not her husband, regardless of marital status shall be punished as a court-martial directs.
925.ART.125 subsection A) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation or acts of none vaginal intercourse with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.
Subsection B) any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial directs.
Article 120 para 45(b(13). The UCMJ defines sodomy as any sexual act other than vaginal intercouse from a natural position. A natural position is defined as the "missionary" position or the male on top of the female during vaginal intercourse.
Yeah, I looked that up, too. Where does it say anything about positions?
Read that last paragraph and line number section that I posted, Article 120 para 45(B(13). It spells it out. Basically it says anything but the missionary position is considered sodomy under the UCMJs definition.
Maybe I'm just groggy but the code in the UCMJ that I am reading is different from the posted text.
920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.
The section on sodomy looks the same but it doesn't have the definition that talks about the missionary position.
Uniform Code of Military Justice XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Here is a link to that portion of the U.S. Code. It is a lot longer but I'm still not finding the stuff about positions and wives only. It reads fairly similar to the Indiana and Illinois code sections that deal with sexual crimes.
United States Code: Title 10,920. Art. 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct | LII / Legal Information Institute
The anal sex provision is in the usmj inorder to limit the spread of HIV or so our jag officer told us. Technically, the only authorized sex position is the missionary and between husbands and wifes at least according to the ucmj
Corvette, imagine what it would be like if you were not allowed to serve you country because of <you own a Corvette>. Wouldn't you feel slighted in the least?
Gays have been serving in the military since it's inception. To deny this is to deny reality. I have agreed with the DADT policy because it allows all to have their illusions, but at some point in time, we have to face reality. Right now, the current crop of recruits are much less adverse to this than my generation.
I don't know the answer, but I would expect this to be much less of a problem than it appears to be.
The commandant is spot on with his assessment. This subject really makes me sick. The liberal left wingers always attempting to water down true American values and common sense. This is a christian nation. Homosexuality is wrong on all counts. People attempting to sugar coat the subject are not our friends. Gays have no business in our armed services. Openly gay people certainly have no place in our services. The powers to be need to listen to the ones that really know. Sickening IMO.
I agree with you on some points, I personally am against homosexuality HOWEVER our fore fathers set this country up on basis that every citizen be allowed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One has that freedom to chose homosexuality, however if chosen there is no place in the military to be flaunting it openly because not only of unit moral, but personal safety. As I said above, if they want to serve openly, okay, let's make the barracks and latrines co-ed. Also fyi, the US constitution that I swore to protect has religion seperate from the government aka separation of church and state and the freedom to worship any religion you want, even though a most of our fore fathers were christians, I don't consider us a christian country.
For those that are fine with gays in the military, you are the problem.
No, the military isn't the place to test social experiments.
American lives, and particularly soldiers lives are very important to me. I've lived that value.
Yes, it boils down to a bedroom preference. The military should be nuetral on bedroom preferences. I happen to be straight, but I'm pretty damned kinky. The military never seemed to have an opinion one way or the other about that.
Why does this issue seem to bring out these imaginary trump cards? Agree or disagree, you don't have some kind of special hotline to the absolute truth.
"Conway says these few gays don't cause a problem now because their homosexuality is not known publicly. But he said if their sexuality does become public, "90 to 95 percent of the Marines" he has informally surveyed are concerned about the consequences. Conway cited impromptu surveys he has conducted by a "show of hands" among Marines at town hall style meetings." quoted from above mentioned FoxNews article.
Sounds like a pretty solid stat to be passing around.
ed. note: not sure if that's the correct pantone for the "sarcasm" statements, but it should read as sarcasm.
Hmmm, eleven years? Did you take a short to re-up?
I guess they shouldn't have allowed me to enlist in the Navy, being as according to you, I am the problem. If someone qualifies mentally and physically to join the armed forces, why should we stop them?
Are you gay or do you just think they should be able to join? Since the US military stated for about 230 years that being gay disqualifies someone from joining, I'd say yes, that should stop them. It's no different than the illegals in this country, just because they are here doesn't automatically make them Americans and it certainly doesn't qualify them to become Americans. Why should the military have to accommodate a sexual preference, a perverted, counter-nature one at that? There are no flamboyant gays in the military... because open gays cannot serve in the military. Change the law and watch that change quickly. This isn't simply a matter of 'oh just let them have their way'!! Damn... some are so willing to play with the lives of our soldiers under the guise of freedom. It's pitiful and shameless.
As I've posted many times on these threads, I was in for eleven years, I knew and knew of gay soldiers in every unit I was in, never saw it cause a problem.
Being in the military doesn't automatically mean you feel a particular way about this issue. Reasonable people can disagree.
Are you gay or do you just think they should be able to join? Since the US military stated for about 230 years that being gay disqualifies someone from joining, I'd say yes, that should stop them. It's no different than the illegals in this country, just because they are here doesn't automatically make them Americans and it certainly doesn't qualify them to become Americans. Why should the military have to accommodate a sexual preference, a perverted, counter-nature one at that? There are no flamboyant gays in the military... because open gays cannot serve in the military. Change the law and watch that change quickly. This isn't simply a matter of 'oh just let them have their way'!! Damn... some are so willing to play with the lives of our soldiers under the guise of freedom. It's pitiful and shameless.