Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Circe]

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

Why try to change people? That's pretty arrogant and intrusive.

You could just mind your own business: everyone would like that better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here it is again:

Military LAW was forever in the regulations

It was Regulation 615-360 Section 8

Then it went to as Military LAW:
"HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY SERVICE"
NOTHING ABOUT SEX, if you violated it you were dishonorably dishcarged UNDER MILITATY LAW regulated to the Department of Defense to dictate policy.

Then it went into law as:
INTENT to be homosexual was THE LAW.

10USC654 Public Law103-160

Thanks for proving me correct.

Let me educate you on why you are a complete idiot.

The section of the US code you cited does not have the force of law, it is a statement of policy.

§654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(b) Policy.—A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2) The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).
(d) Required Briefings.—The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2) The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3) The term “homosexual act” means—
(A) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B) any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).
(Added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670.)

U.S.C. Title 10 - ARMED FORCES

It was never illegal to be gay and join the military. So far all you have done is prove you have a hard time accepting the truth.

Every bit of military law is contained within the UCMJ, I already posted the portion of that to prove that the only thing they cared about criminalizing was sodomy, which is an act that can be done even if you are not gay.

The LAW delegates to how many bureaucrats the power to make how many thousands of rules, regulations and policies?
My state licensing board makes many rules for my license. Those rules ARE NOT IN THE LAW. The statute gives them the authority to MAKE THE RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES. All enforceable by THE LAW.
THE LAW gives the bureaucrats the authority to force the solicitor in any county in Georgia to charge ME WITH A CRIME if I disobey the rules, regulations and policies THE BUREAUCRATS WRITE which most are not in the law.
SAME with the military as THE LAW gives the DOD the power to MAKE AND ENFORCE THE POLICIES.
And the POLICY was NOT to enlist any homosexuals if they WERE HOMOSEXUAL and then it went to dishonorable discharges under the POLICY if they had "an intent to to engage in homosexuality" which was THE POLICY VERBATIM under DADT.
How does your sodomy law apply to recruits?
How is "intent" sodomy and what does intent mean?
Furthermore, there IS NO RIGHT to serve in the military so DOD is allowed by THE LAW to determine who they BELIEVE IS SUITABLE for their purposes by THEIR OWN POLICIES.
Policies, rules and regulations SUPPORTED BY LAW that gives them the authority to make them as they see fit as long as they are NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAW.
You are not very swift.

First rule when you find yourself in a whole, stop digging.

Sodomy applies to everyone, even people who are not homosexuals, I never said otherwise. What I said, and continue to say, is that it was never illegal to join the military if you are homosexual. If you really want to prove me wrong all you have to do is supply a single example of anyone that was convicted of the crime of being homosexual in the military.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are wrong. A gay person could get kicked out of the military simply for stating they were gay. They needn't to have had sex at all, just the admission of sexual orientation was enough.

It wasn't the "sex act" that would get you kicked out...obvious by the number of straights who got their knob polished or packed some lady fudge while in uniform.

It was "illegal" to "be" gay, not just have sex with a member of the same sex. You could get kicked out without ever having had sex with a member of the same sex.

Getting discharged from the military is not proof of criminal wrong doing. It was never illegal to be gay and be in the military, you can argue all day long, it will not change that basic truth.

The basic truth is you could be discharged if you never had sex and simply stated that you were gay...or had it found out or even rumored in the witch hunt days.

You could also be discharged for saying you were Amish and didn't believe in fighting, that does not make it illegal to be Amish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except "they" aren't offended by Christians. Many of "them" are Christians. "They" are offended by people who use their religion to justify bigotry, but that's all. It's not a blanket condemnation of ALL Christians as you do to ALL gays.

I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I keep hearing the argument "It is not they do not want homosexuals it is they do not want homosexuals that have engaged in homosexual sexual relations"
as if that homosexual is sort of not a homosexual or less of one.
As if heterosexuals that do not engage in heterosexual sex are not really heterosexuals.

You keep hearing people saying things when there is nobody around you, and no one has said anything like what you are hearing? Isn't that a symptom of schizophrenia?

 

[RKMBrown]

Simple, let states decide the definition of marriage. Keep the Federal Government out of it.

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Bullshit. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Show me your due process.

 

[Circe]

But at the end of the day people do not care about how much you know.
They want to know about how much YOU CARE.

You don't care; you just want to change and dominate other people. Nobody likes that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Getting discharged from the military is not proof of criminal wrong doing. It was never illegal to be gay and be in the military, you can argue all day long, it will not change that basic truth.

The basic truth is you could be discharged if you never had sex and simply stated that you were gay...or had it found out or even rumored in the witch hunt days.

You could also be discharged for saying you were Amish and didn't believe in fighting, that does not make it illegal to be Amish.

Forget it. You might as well argue with a wall. It has entered the mythology of the Left so that they will believe it even when shown it cannot be true. Just like "Gore won the 2000 election", "Bush lied to get us into Iraq". "Zimmerman gunned down an innocent child."
Despite ample evidence to the contrary on all these they cannot wrap their tiny minds around the idea they might be wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Bullshit. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Show me your due process.

Who is being deprived of due process? Do you even know what the fuck you're babbling about?

 

[RKMBrown]

I used to be a bigot against gays. Then I was one of those that claimed I wasn't and likened to giving them any rights to allowing incest and sex with donkeys.
When I gave all of that nonsense I found that treating them the same and giving them the rights and respect they deserve is so much easier to carry. And made many a new friend along the way.
If a southern bred straight country boy done good like me can come around anyone can.
And that is my mission here. If JUST ONE changes like I did my work has been done.

Why try to change people? That's pretty arrogant and intrusive.

You could just mind your own business: everyone would like that better.

If your goal is to mind your own business... what are you doing here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds good.

Provided the states recognize the equal protection rights of same-sex couples and allow them access to marriage law, however a given state might write that law.

In fact, no state need ever again be bothered by a Federal court provided it obeys the Constitution and its case law.

Now that is indeed simple.

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Bullshit. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Show me your due process.

You want me to cite the Supreme Court case that said that due process doesn't apply to the states, or were you trying to prove how stupid you are?

 

[bodecea]

I hate to point out the obvious, but anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of Jesus is not a Christian, even if they believe they are.

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean like the 10th Amendment that delegates to the states powers not granted to the Federal gov't? Among those powers the right to recognize marriages?
Dems are such simps.

Bullshit. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Show me your due process.

Who is being deprived of due process? Do you even know what the fuck you're babbling about?

The gays... and yes I do know what I'm talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The basic truth is you could be discharged if you never had sex and simply stated that you were gay...or had it found out or even rumored in the witch hunt days.

You could also be discharged for saying you were Amish and didn't believe in fighting, that does not make it illegal to be Amish.

Forget it. You might as well argue with a wall. It has entered the mythology of the Left so that they will believe it even when shown it cannot be true. Just like "Gore won the 2000 election", "Bush lied to get us into Iraq". "Zimmerman gunned down an innocent child."
Despite ample evidence to the contrary on all these they cannot wrap their tiny minds around the idea they might be wrong.

I know, but sooner or later they will stop posting here trying to prove I am wrong when I stick to stating the simple truth.

 

[RKMBrown]

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

crickets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Jesus said what about gays?

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

Everyone has an answer, almost everyone gets the wrong answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you have to ask you wouldn't believe me when I answered.

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

crickets.

Crickets have nothing to do with it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me ask, since you seem to have some kind of answer you are withholding...."And Jesus said what about gays?"

crickets.

Crickets have nothing to do with it.

chirp chirp

 

[Circe]

Why try to change people? That's pretty arrogant and intrusive.

You could just mind your own business: everyone would like that better.

If your goal is to mind your own business... what are you doing here?

There you go again, putting words into my post I never said.

Did I say my goal was to mind my own business?

Nope. I was talking to someone else.

My business now is to tell you to quit twisting everything I say! Darn. I'm beginning to wonder about your reading and comprehension skills.

 

[Circe]

Well, I see this thread has come to the end of its useful lifetime.

It was interesting while it was interesting, though.