Psst - I link to the UCMJ, you link to some lawyers web site.
WW
And? Seems you forgot to refute or challenge the types of improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ as listed at the SOURCE I posted.
Additionally, and what is really being discussed is, where in the UCMJ is the President delegated a power to determine what is and what is not improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ, and thus legitimizes the following EO?
JWK
I have linked to the appropriate portions of the UCMJ in the thread. Thanks for confirming you didn’t even look at it. Not interested I guess. Carry on
False, I listed all the the points in the UCMJ Chapter on 134 that make reference to sex, citing each by name.
I posted from the UCMJ, you posted from some website.
Bless your heart.
WW
I must have missed that. Please provide a link to the post you are referring to which quotes from the UCNJ authorizing the President to determine what is and what is not improper sexual conduct, and thus legitimizes the following EO?
JWK
LOL… okay you got me. I didn’t open this one any more than you did the one’s I linked. I assumed (bad thing to do) that it was about the vaccines, which is basically the only thing I’ve been commenting on.
So, now you edit what I wrote and then respond to what you edited rather than what I actually wrote.
What I actually wrote was:
And? Seems you forgot to refute or challenge the types of improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ as listed at the SOURCE I posted.
I kind of figured you didn’t open the EO article, and I knew your comments were in regard to “vaccines”. I should have emphasized, or summarized, what the EO is about, and then asked where the President gets such authority. And I do not consider this a “got you” moment. I consider it as a lack of communications.
Are we still good?
JWK
actually the intent was to remove just the link. I’ve corrected the previous post so it is correct.
However that doesn’t change…
Bless your heart.
WW
So, what in the list at the link I posted do you refute or challenge, as improper sexual conduct under Article 134 of the UCMJ and the President is authorized to allow?
JWK
Homosexuality/homosexual acts
Nontraditional sexual arrangements
For two. They are no longer articles that are punished under the UCMJ. But are listed on the web page you linked.
Being a homosexual or having homosexual relations are no longer punishable under the UCMJ.
Nor is having a “nontraditional sexual arrangement” punishable under the UCMJ because of the sexual nature of the arrangement. What is punishable under the UCMU (as a linked earlier), is “Wrongful Cohabitation” which is ONLY applicable when fraudulently projecting a legal marital status and it specifically notes that sex is not required as part of the offense for that offense. Found on PDF page 11, Section "69. Article 134—(Cohabitation, wrongful) ".
Bless your heart.
WW
Why yes it is.
And, it is still illegal under the UCMJ’s Article 125 - Sodomy to:
- Have sex with animals,
- Have sex with a minor under the age of 16,
- Have sex without the consent of the other person.
However it is not illegal under the UCMJ for a wife to perform oral sex on her husband (or other consenting adult), a wife to perform oral sex on her wife (or other consenting adult), a husband to perform oral sex on his wife (or other consenting adult), a husband to perform oral sex on his husband (or other consenting adult). Same goes for anal sex if they are into that.
Article 125 does not preclude homosexual sex between consenting adults.
WW
(Oh almost forgot, Bless Your Heart.)
1 Like
Thank you for your opinion but it seems by the language, homosexual activity is still a punishable offense.
Aside from that, by what authority does a President alter the UCMJ?
JWK
Psst - not my opinion. As previously posted, here are the elements that qualify under the Sodomy provisions of Article 125.
Homosexual relations between consenting adults does not fall under anything punishable under that Article.
Bless Your Heart!
WW
So, I see you are still posting your opinion about the text not making sexual deviant behavior punishable.
