Just in case you weren’t sure, sex with animals is still illegal in the U.S. military
Dec 13th, 2011 | 41 responses
About a week ago, a “Get a Life” post by Joe Gandelman discussing a bovine question by a reporter on a defense authorization bill that included a provision which repeals the military law on sodomy and the military ban on sex with animals, or bestiality, quickly (de)generated some heated comments on the issue.
One person insisted that sodomy and other bizarre deviant sex acts should be illegal and was appalled that bestiality would now be legal in the U.S. military.
Apparently, several Conservative Congressmen and groups are also freaked out about this and “really, really [wanted] to make sure that sex with animals is still outlawed in the military.”
Last week, conservative lobbyists and animal rights groups were up in arms over an obscure provision in the draft Defense Appropriations bill that would have eliminated a clause prohibiting sodomy and bestiality from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Pentagon officials described the changes as largely a legal housekeeping matter, because the sodomy prohibition had long ago been struck down by the Supreme Court and the bestiality prohibition was covered by other sections of the UCMJ.
In an earlier article, the Stars and Stripes had to reassure skeptics that, “Just in case you weren’t sure, bestiality is still illegal in the U.S. military.”
Again, the Stripes:
But that reality didn’t stop panicked cries that the Pentagon was poised to legalize sex with animals, and congressional staffers said they worked in recent days to calm lawmakers worried that the technical clean-up could be misunderstood.
In the end, senators who pushed for the change on behalf of the Pentagon simply dropped the matter, and removed the issue from the annual defense authorization bill now headed for the President’s desk.
Defense officials said the decision will have no effect on the enforcement of military law. Sodomy is permitted; bestiality is not.
Finally,
Those hoping to strike the sodomy language from the UCMJ said they’ll try again next year. Meanwhile, officials with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who last week blasted the White House for not taking the bestiality issue seriously, said they were pleased with the outcome.
“Even if this part of the statute is for all intents and purposes dormant, the Department of Defense has given its assurance that anyone committing a sexually abusive act with a member of another species will be prosecuted,” PETA spokewoman Colleen O’Brien said.
Congress is expected to approve the authorization act later this week. Obama has threatened to veto the measure in recent months, but over the issue of new detention rules for terrorists, not bestiality concerns.
41 Responses to “Just in case you weren’t sure, sex with animals is still illegal in the U.S. military”
You have a strange sense of determination Mr. De Wind, but I wonder…
I wonder the purpose and meaning of life?
Whether it be a glorious creation by God in heaven or merely a pressure to exist by some hitherto un-described force of physics…if it is not exactly the seeking of life, adapting to allow life, creating more of life, and, above all, the simple function of being alive within it’s dynamic…that is the true meaning of life?
What could possibly be more important to whatever the origin of life is, than it’s successful proliferation throughout the universe? For life must certainly have a distinct purpose now that we can register it’s historical logic here on this planet. A history of adaptation, struggle, and, adaptation again and again, trial and error, branching off to dead ends and extinct species until one or more design succeeds into what it requires to grow further and further….into what?
The origin does not care what, by our current state of knowledge. It just makes the mechanical act of creation a pleasure experience within the mind or node of the alive. It is a driven force, a powerful need that comes from the complete unknown. This force nearly, but not quite, overwhelming, though it is it’s degree of power that is quit necessary for life to exist. For millions of known species it is the act of sex.
So how is it that sodomy serves the purpose of life except to excoriate it’s eternal drive to reproduce from existence? The force that produces no life but excretes the love endorphins into the center of the brain that says that all is well please continue, but kills it instead? Kills life by tricking the actors into some dull and dreadful shyster shell game of mental bullshitery into yet another extinct dead species. What worse enemy could life have? What sad fate, with the last of your kind wasted, being spent into that which removes from the body it’s toxic filth.
There is good and evil in the world Dorian. That which proliferates life is good and that which destroys it is evil. A positive and negative force analogy is the most scientific and the most theological. This is indeed the most correct conclusion whether your heart is with God or the microscope.
We have a duty, but sometimes we fail. I understand.
Gee Allen, I didn’t know chocolate was so evil.
Just in case you weren’t sure, sodomy is legal in the U.S. Allen.
edited to correct error
Wow Allen, what a load of toxic bull filth you’ve put on the page.
Also, saying “science” doesn’t mean you’re talking about science. Hell, you’re not even talking theology.
I imagine people who enjoy having sex with animals are already doing so, with our without a legal mandate.
Propagation of the species and human sexuality are not equal. I doubt loving homosexual relationships are in existence to doom the species.
Rape proliferates life. Is it good?
Capital punishment eliminates life. Is it evil?
Hi Dorian —
I do appreciate this article. I have a question, and I’m sorry if it’s a bit graphic. So, your article and subsequent comment seem to point to beastiality and sodomy still being illegal in the military. One is illegal always in civie world (and should be), one is entirely legal in civie world (and should be). Obviously doing either of these things during on-duty time would be illegal. However, if a military person and his or her spouse wish to engage in some non-vanilla activities in the bedroom, is that actually considered illegal and punishable in the military? I mena, a la the previous Texas sodomy laws?
Dorian-
-[Just in case you weren’t sure, sodomy is legal in the U.S. Allen.]-
In America Dorian…
So is Adultery.
So is capital punishment.
So is abortion.
So is gambling.
So is prostitution.
Hi, roro.
Although I am not an expert in either sodomy or bestiality, I’ll try to answer your question.
First, sodomy in the military is covered under article 125 of the UCMJ: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm
But, as you correctly state, sodomy is legal in the U.S. and the sodomy prohibition in the UCMJ has long ago been struck down by the Supreme Court — i.e. such provision is “dormant” and can not be enforced. So, this should answer the question: “However, if a military person and his or her spouse wish to engage in some non-vanilla activities in the bedroom, is that actually considered illegal and punishable in the military?”
Additionally, in my 20 years in the military I don’t ever remember anyone peeking into someone else’s bedroom to see if the specific UCMJ act was being performed, or this ever being an issue..
As to bestiality, I think everyone agrees that it is icky, and illegal — including in the military.
“Additionally, in my 20 years in the military I don’t ever remember anyone peeking into someone else’s bedroom to see if the specific UCMJ act was being performed, or this ever being an issue..”
Unless they’re gay of course. Anyway, thanks for your answer.
“In America Dorian…So is Adultery.So is capital punishment.So is abortion.So is gambling.So is prostitution.”
Prostitution is not legal in the US.
In any case, that people get to do things without your permission should stop being shocking to you. It’s a good thing.
RORO- you are WRONG again. There are no federal laws restricting prostitution. Otherwise it would not be legal in Nevada and in one other place, but I will not tell you where. Laughable clatistof is monotany.
Dorian-
Though laughing hysterically, I must commend you Dorian. Dr. E asked us all to reflect in deep thought with our posts. I can see that I’m the only one doing so on this particular subject. I know personally of four men discharged as sexual deviants during my own service. I know because I ratted them out in the name of God and Country. I am very proud of that.
You are a true man of God, Allen, and should be rightly proud of it.
Dorian-
Ah yes, “pride”.
You are quite correct Dorian. I shall work on it.
” I can see that I’m the only one doing so on this particular subject.”
This is hilarious. “Other people’s sex is gross and evil” is not, in fact, deep thought. Also, “look at the gross homo” is not something to be proud of, if that’s who the “sexual deviants” were.
You may want to work on “tolerance,” too, Allen. Merry Christmas
Allen, I don’t agree or understand it, but that was an awesome post at 1:45am. Hang in there.
Dorian, if you please, there may be a less commented subject that is up your alley, that is more important than the current one.
I apologize if you have already covered it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/us/politics/11abort.html
I am tolerant Dorian.
Duck-
Thanks. How could you possibly disagree and you DO understand it because it is english?!
“Free your mind and your ass will follow”. funkadelic 1970
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqmEibSY0I
Not ignoring you DD, but I am pretty much swamped now getting ready for travel. In addition, you pretty well know what the reactions are going to be on this divisive issue: those who are against abortion to begin with are going to be even more against (tax-payer paid) abortion for women in the military; then there is the additional complexity of those who are against abortion and against women going into combat and then seeing those women getting pregnant while in combat and wanting to have abortions ..well, you can figure it out for yourself.
I may take this issue on, however, when I have more time. Have some great holidays.
Allen wrote:
First of all, despite your argument to the contrary, sodomy does not “destroy life.”
Second of all, using your logic, abstinence should be considered wrong on the grounds that it fails to proliferate life.
Should the government pass laws against abstinence as well?
Well said Nick…
I personally think we should ban ponytail holders and amusement prks, as they do not create human life.
You miss the point Nick. Looking for ways around the truth is part of the mental make-up, isn’t it.
“You miss the point Nick. Looking for ways around the truth is part of the mental make-up, isn’t it.”
Allen, if your contention is that what you think is axiomatically true (sex you think is ewwie yucky is “evil” and contrary to the meaning of life), then why try to present arguments for it anyway? The arguments fall apart because they’re bad, poorly-thought-out arguments, which don’t hold up to any scrutiny and which are only presented because you want to justify to the rest of us why you get to personally make the sex rules for everyone else. (Which is really pretty creepy and gross.)
I guess what I don’t understand is why, if you’re going to call very straightforward answers to the giant gaping holes in your poor arguments “looking for ways around the truth”, why would you bother to make those arguments in the first place?
Dorian, I was just wondering why you brought up this subject again. The first time went well.
Dduck says:
“Dorian, I was just wondering why you brought up this subject again. The first time went well.”
Really don’t understand what you are talking about DDuck. What do you mean “again”, when have I brought “this subject” up before,”the first time when it went well”?????
Dear Dorian —
Please henseforth only write about what I want you to write about. I’m entirely incapable of passing over articles or comments sections where I have nothing to say. My ability to make snarky psuedo-witticisms and insult the other commenters and bloggers is really what this blog is supposed to be about. Didn’t you know? The fact that others might find the issues surrounding privacy and sex interesting and of value to discuss is no excuse to give into their likes over mine. Therefore, I will force my own stories into your comments section, and demand that you look at my story instead of the one you wanted to write about.
Wait, is that not how this blog thingy works?
Thanks, roro
BTW, I still have no idea what DDuck is talking about in his last comment on this thread. Perhaps one day, he’ll be so kind as to explain.
Have some great holidays!
Dorain, “About a week ago, a “Get a Life” post by Joe Gandelman”. OK, you did not do the initial story. I thought the first time every one got their licks in and it was kind of funny, then it got not so.
Just my opinion.
DDuck:
Joe’s story’ was a link to what I called a “bovine question” about the defense authorization bill. Since then, Conservative politicians and “think tanks” got their *#%s all in the wringer about the UCMJ permitting or not permitting sodomy, bestiality, etc..
I believe that is a valid topic to write about and to clarify what is in and what is not in the UCMJ; what the Supreme Court has decided; and what the military justice system is doing about it. Sorry you disagree. Have a happy holiday.
dduck — If you’re not comfortable with the subject of sex or the issues surrounding it, by all means stop reading the posts on that subject. In my opinion, the ability of people to conduct their sex and family lives as they want to is absolutely fundamental to freedom and equality in this country. If you disagree, that’s fine, but your personal discomfort with sex doesn’t mean it’s not a valid topic of discussion for others. Nobody’s forcing you to read it.
Roro, I was probably doing all kinds of sex things while you were feeding cookies to your dolls. I have no beef about the subject, except it became a variation of the Punch & Judy show updated by Allen and Roro.
Once again, I don’t care what you feel or do about sex, just don’t get crumbs under your partners ass.
When you “assume” you make an ass out of you and me.
Sorry, Dorian, for any misunderstanding.
Again: if you are uncomfortable with the subject matter, don’t participate. If you’ve got something to add, please do. Sniping at other people and telling them to shut up does not, in fact, add anything. Neither does it get anyone to shut up, in case you haven’t noticed. I’m very proud of you that you’ve done “all kinds of sex things” decades ago; a pat on the head for you, I guess? That still doesn’t make you the arbiter of who gets to talk about what.
All I ask is you be careful of the crumbs.
Ta ta.
(a) that’s decidedly NOT all you asked.
(b) uh, no.
Ciao.
Allen wrote:
I may very well have missed the point that you were attempting to make. However, I was merely trying to point a gap in the logic you employed in your argument above.
If you were to make that statement “Activity X is immoral”, neither I or anyone else on this blog could argue that your statement is wrong because such a statement is an opinion, and opinions can’t proven be true or false since they’re just opinions.
However, if you were to argue “Activity X is immoral because it can be defined by Characteristic Y”, then you have made a much more complex argument that can challenged on the basis of intellectual consistency.
Given the argument “Activity X is immoral because it can be defined by Characteristic Y”, it logically follows that being defined by Characteristic Y is a sufficient condition to deem Activity X to be immoral (i.e. if being defined by Characteristic Y were not a sufficient reason to deem Activity X immoral, then the original argument would not be true).
Furthermore, if being defined by Characteristic Y is a sufficient condition to deem Activity X to be immoral, then it necessarily follows that any activity that is defined by Characteristic Y must also be deemed immoral.
Going back to your argument…
You argued that sodomy should be considered “evil” on the basis that it does not advance life. However, there are numerous activities and lifestyle choices that (like sodomy) do not advance life.
That’s why I brought up abstinence. If an individual makes a decision to remain abstinent, then that individual is pursing a lifestyle that will guarantee that he/she will not help proprogate the human population during the time that he/she is remaining abstinent. A person who engages in abstinence is doing no more to contribute to the propogation of the human population than a person who engages in sodomy, which leads me to wonder whether you also consider abstinence to be “evil.”
If your answer is “no”, then I question your consistency on this matter as well as whether you truly believe in your own argument.
If you believe that something is immoral, then there’s no logical argument that I or anyone else at TMV could make to “prove” you wrong. But if you’re going to defend your opinion, then your argument has to stand up to the rules of logic.
Give it up Nick.
A thousand words could not devalue my point one nano measure. Whether you are offended or not is totally irrelevant.
Nick — I’ve also made the mistake of trying to logically explain something to Allen. Right here on this thread, in fact.
But this is a person who wrote this sentence: ” A positive and negative force analogy is the most scientific and the most theological,” and thinks that “you are not being logically consistent” means “I am offended”. Best guess is he’s probably not going to have a whole lot going on in the logic department. Not one “nano measure”, I’d say.
Yuk Yuk RO.
Nobody laughing but you. It’s a very serious consequence being sexually disoriented. Kills lives everyday. Making fun of the suffering is really not on.