Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Sexual orientation isn't (just) about sex rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
From last night's Republican debate, in response to a question from a gay soldier:

Rick Santorum wrote:
I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

...

(DADT) would be re-instituted as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was- sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.


Santorum's response is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to say that gay/lesbian soldiers can serve openly and ends with an absurdly hypocritical claim that soldiers should keep it to themselves whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

The misunderstanding is the implicit assumption that sexual orientation is about sex -- that being allowed to be "out" is equivalent to being allowed to have sex in the barracks.

This is made obvious when we ask whether Santorum really means that heterosexual people should keep it to themselves. Does he advocate that married soldiers stop living on base with their spouses? Does he think that a soldier in Afghanistan whose wife files for divorce shouldn't talk about it? Should soldiers be expected to play it coy about letters from loved ones? And when soldiers get free time off base does he really expect that they won't give any indication of the type of civilian they'd most enjoy sharing that downtime?
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe his fear is that gay male soldiers would throw grenades like girls.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Makes me wonder if he would kick women back out if he could? I mean seriously... does he think sex never happens between people serving now?

Given the relatively low percentage of homosexuals in the general population I have got to think that the increase in the number of sexual encounters going to happen because DADT is removeed is going to be so small as to hardly register.

I would think the only issue that could even tangentially arise would be dealing with open viewing of public displays of affection or nocturnal visits that your bunk mates would have to listen too. Which Jarred or Trey can correct me if I am wrong... I think are frowned upon if not forbidden while on duty or deployed anyway. And I doubt homosexuals are going to try to push those boundaries anymore than anybody else does.

Of all the arguments that one might make to support DADT... this has got to be one of the weakest.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Did you see the arms on the guy asking the question last night?


Sure. Checking out the guys arms. OK. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Schiedler
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:


The misunderstanding is the implicit assumption that sexual orientation is about sex -- that being allowed to be "out" is equivalent to being allowed to have sex in the barracks.



Let's see, if I were a soul-less politician...

How many people will vote who really want their public institutions to project an image of "sexlessness."

3 million.

How many other voters believe that society will collapse like "Sodom and Gomorrah" if hedonism is unchecked by government?

4 million.

How many voters will realize that sex is just not a big issue facing the military today and that the Pentagon has it handled with ethics codes and discipline in the barracks?

2 million.

How many other voters are strongly pro-gay/lesbian rights voters?

1 million

OK, 7 million votes versus 3 million. Ok, I'll go out against revising DADT.

These vote counts may be wrong, but that's all Santorum cares about. He doesn't care who thinks he's dumb or wrong. Of course he believes he's right, but that's also a side note to his handlers.

The REAL question is why do so many voters choose to vote on a cultural values platform where the most important thing they want is they don't want the US to collapse because of rampant debauchery (both hetero and homo). Other issues don't rev up this particular block of voters as much. That's the weird part to me.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
eschiedler wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:


The misunderstanding is the implicit assumption that sexual orientation is about sex -- that being allowed to be "out" is equivalent to being allowed to have sex in the barracks.



Let's see, if I were a soul-less politician...

How many people will vote who really want their public institutions to project an image of "sexlessness."

3 million.

How many other voters believe that society will collapse like "Sodom and Gomorrah" if hedonism is unchecked by government?

4 million.

How many voters will realize that sex is just not a big issue facing the military today and that the Pentagon has it handled with ethics codes and discipline in the barracks?

2 million.

How many other voters are strongly pro-gay/lesbian rights voters?

1 million

OK, 7 million votes versus 3 million. Ok, I'll go out against revising DADT.

These vote counts may be wrong, but that's all Santorum cares about. He doesn't care who thinks he's dumb or wrong. Of course he believes he's right, but that's also a side note to his handlers.

The REAL question is why do so many voters choose to vote on a cultural values platform where the most important thing they want is they don't want the US to collapse because of rampant debauchery (both hetero and homo). Other issues don't rev up this particular block of voters as much. That's the weird part to me.


Or you could ask what is it about the US that makes so many US voters choose to vote on a cultural values platform where the most important thing they want is they don't want the US to collapse because of rampant debauchery (both hetero and homo).

Comparing the US and say the UK, Australia etc the statements like this from Santorum would be pretty close to making you unelectable I would say.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eschiedler wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:


The misunderstanding is the implicit assumption that sexual orientation is about sex -- that being allowed to be "out" is equivalent to being allowed to have sex in the barracks.



Let's see, if I were a soul-less politician...

How many people will vote who really want their public institutions to project an image of "sexlessness."

3 million.

How many other voters believe that society will collapse like "Sodom and Gomorrah" if hedonism is unchecked by government?

4 million.

How many voters will realize that sex is just not a big issue facing the military today and that the Pentagon has it handled with ethics codes and discipline in the barracks?

2 million.

How many other voters are strongly pro-gay/lesbian rights voters?

1 million

OK, 7 million votes versus 3 million. Ok, I'll go out against revising DADT.

These vote counts may be wrong, but that's all Santorum cares about. He doesn't care who thinks he's dumb or wrong. Of course he believes he's right, but that's also a side note to his handlers.

The REAL question is why do so many voters choose to vote on a cultural values platform where the most important thing they want is they don't want the US to collapse because of rampant debauchery (both hetero and homo). Other issues don't rev up this particular block of voters as much. That's the weird part to me.


Actually, no, that's not what motivates Rick Santorum. He's a true believer, and cares less about winning an election than he does stating his position. He will push his belief system even to his political detriment. Personally, I'm not a fan of most of his stated positions, even though like Santorum, I'm a Roman Catholic. However, while I disagree with his position on things like DADT, I will give the guy his due - he's not your typical crass politican, he's a man of principles.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I would think the only issue that could even tangentially arise would be dealing with open viewing of public displays of affection or nocturnal visits that your bunk mates would have to listen too. Which Jarred or Trey can correct me if I am wrong... I think are frowned upon if not forbidden while on duty or deployed anyway. And I doubt homosexuals are going to try to push those boundaries anymore than anybody else does.


Sex outside of marriage is a violation of the UCMJ. Sodomy is illegal even between married couples. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it is punishable when caught.)


I couldn't find the first one, and the second one (apart from being completely ridiculous and having no reason for being in any kind of military code) is impossibe to check, other then by peeping in on people during sex.

By the way, anal sex is not unnatural carnal copulation, so it can be argued that anal sex is not part of the US military's definiton of sodomy.
I do agree with the rule against bestiality.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:

I couldn't find the first one...


Article 134
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.ht...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:

By the way, anal sex is not unnatural carnal copulation, so it can be argued that anal sex is not part of the US military's definiton of sodomy.


Unfortunately not only is anal sex sodomy, so is oral sex:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
mag74b wrote:

I couldn't find the first one...


Article 134
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.ht...

That one is about adultery. Sex with a person other than your spouse, or with a married person not married to you.
Sex outside of marriage can be adultery, but can also be sex between non-married persons. The latter is not mentioned in the UCMJ
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
mag74b wrote:

By the way, anal sex is not unnatural carnal copulation, so it can be argued that anal sex is not part of the US military's definiton of sodomy.


Unfortunately not only is anal sex sodomy, so is oral sex:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

I was joking that the literal text of the article does not define what unnatural carnal copulation is, except for bestiality.

It would be interesting to start a legal discussion in the US army, to make it clear that both anal and oral sex are not unnatural carnal copulation.

Apart from that, I doubt they do anything about that article, since if they would do it, they would have two problems:
1: An unacceptable invasion of privacy of military personel.
2: There would be no more US army.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:
I was joking that the literal text of the article does not define what unnatural carnal copulation is, except for bestiality.

It would be interesting to start a legal discussion in the US army, to make it clear that both anal and oral sex are not unnatural carnal copulation.


Uhhh...did you read it?

It most certainly DOES define that, very specifically:

Quote:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal;


Seems pretty clear to me?
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
bjlillo wrote:

Sex outside of marriage is a violation of the UCMJ. Sodomy is illegal even between married couples. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it is punishable when caught.)
Add this to that old list I made Koldie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
mag74b wrote:
I was joking that the literal text of the article does not define what unnatural carnal copulation is, except for bestiality.

It would be interesting to start a legal discussion in the US army, to make it clear that both anal and oral sex are not unnatural carnal copulation.


Uhhh...did you read it?

It most certainly DOES define that, very specifically:

Quote:
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal;


Seems pretty clear to me?

Going way OT here but,

When I talk about the UCMJ, I mean just the basic text, without explanations, which says:

Quote:
925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation 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.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Your quote does not com from the UCMJ, but from the about.com explanatory text about the UCMJ.


I would still love to see everyone who ever broke this rule courtmartialed though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I would think the only issue that could even tangentially arise would be dealing with open viewing of public displays of affection or nocturnal visits that your bunk mates would have to listen too. Which Jarred or Trey can correct me if I am wrong... I think are frowned upon if not forbidden while on duty or deployed anyway. And I doubt homosexuals are going to try to push those boundaries anymore than anybody else does.


Sex outside of marriage is a violation of the UCMJ. Sodomy is illegal even between married couples. (That's not to say it doesn't happen, just that it is punishable when caught.)


Perhaps it's time to overhaul the UCMJ to remove such antiquated and irrelevant sections. It's hard to understand where the military has a legitmate interest in the private sex lives of it's members. Now, governing such conduct in an active military theatre might have some legitimacy considering discipline but, even that should be subjected to rational scrutiny.

The question raised for me here is whether the military puts as much effort into investigating and prosecuting heterosexual acts as it does to mere statements of homosexual identification. Under "Don't ask, don't tell" you couldn't even admit to being gay even if you were "celibate".Clearly the law was being used to weed out homosexuals without regard to evidence of their effect on unit cohesion or effectiveness.

Santorum doesn't seem to care whether there is a rational basis for ejecting gays.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mag74b wrote:

Your quote does not com from the UCMJ, but from the about.com explanatory text about the UCMJ.


Actually, about.com sourced it from the MCM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_for_Courts-Martial
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.