2
2
0
If all other fraternization laws are followed, why should it matter to a command who has sex with whom?
I think most of us can agree that USMJ is extremely outdated.
How many examples of a couple who have been going through a five year divorce battle where the spouse uses the threat of adultery as a weapon against the servicemember.
So to we have evolution of society, where many (whether you agree it is right or not) have all parties consent (without adultery) to be involved.
I propose that congress should update UCMJ to recognize that we do not live in a victorian era.
I think most of us can agree that USMJ is extremely outdated.
How many examples of a couple who have been going through a five year divorce battle where the spouse uses the threat of adultery as a weapon against the servicemember.
So to we have evolution of society, where many (whether you agree it is right or not) have all parties consent (without adultery) to be involved.
I propose that congress should update UCMJ to recognize that we do not live in a victorian era.
Ethical Non-Monogamy and the UCMJ
Posted from polyamoryandthemilitary.comPosted in these groups: 
UCMJ
UCMJ
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
SGM Bill Frazer
I give up- if you play, married then the spouse will take you to the cleaners. If it wasn't considered a crime then you wouldn't go to prison, but it is and you can- the Military has lived with it for hundreds of years, why can't you? Oh Gee, excuse me, I though people in authorit and command were Suppose to enforce the regulations. , My bad for being a old non-PC soldier.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM Bill Frazer
First of all I did live monogamously as married when in service. I did find that it is not how I should have lived.
And SGM, you just did the CLASSIC excuse of all time: "It has always been done this way before." I'm willing to put money down that you lectured your troops on that very concept at some point or other.
Sarcasm aside I do and have enforced the regulations. And I have probably read them in more depth than most. All the criteria must be met, including part 3
1.That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
2.That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
3.That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
So... let's send Soldiers to jail for going on a date while his wife whp hes been battling for a divorce with for 18 months screws everyone he knows, kicks him out while she lives in housing and gets him an article 15 for bouncing a check. Right?
Because that's military morality.
And anyone who really thinks that's justice or at least doesn't at least say it's wrong doesn't deserve the mantle of leadership.
But hey... it's been done that way for hundreds of years right?
Suck it up buttercup.
First of all I did live monogamously as married when in service. I did find that it is not how I should have lived.
And SGM, you just did the CLASSIC excuse of all time: "It has always been done this way before." I'm willing to put money down that you lectured your troops on that very concept at some point or other.
Sarcasm aside I do and have enforced the regulations. And I have probably read them in more depth than most. All the criteria must be met, including part 3
1.That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
2.That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
3.That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
So... let's send Soldiers to jail for going on a date while his wife whp hes been battling for a divorce with for 18 months screws everyone he knows, kicks him out while she lives in housing and gets him an article 15 for bouncing a check. Right?
Because that's military morality.
And anyone who really thinks that's justice or at least doesn't at least say it's wrong doesn't deserve the mantle of leadership.
But hey... it's been done that way for hundreds of years right?
Suck it up buttercup.
(0)
(0)
SGM Bill Frazer
CPT (Join to see) in other words let's sink to the level of the other person, be as base or immoral as they are, maybe why you are divorcing? Your ex use is as old, if they do it,I can do it! That is the difference between criminal and law abiding
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGM Bill Frazer
Somehow I don't see having sex as immoral. I think it's pretty screwed up that people do.
If you're getting morality from the bible (and not from a church that has manipulated it) then you're going to find a plethora of evidence that nonmonogamy is common.
Somehow I don't see having sex as immoral. I think it's pretty screwed up that people do.
If you're getting morality from the bible (and not from a church that has manipulated it) then you're going to find a plethora of evidence that nonmonogamy is common.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
From the article:
I love my husband, boyfriend, and children. They are all a part of my family. I want us to all be able to live together. I want to be able to hold my boyfriends hand in public just like I can hold my husbands hand in public. I want to be able to kiss my boyfriend in public just like I can kiss my husband in public. I want to be able to hug my boyfriend in public without people spreading rumors that I am cheating on my husband.
Right, great idea. Maybe they should come up with a medal or ribbon for bad ideas. Seems like the cadre of people being drawn to the armed forces these days are chocked full of them.
So, if the PFC wants to have a fling with the Colonel's wife, we are all good with that? I mean, it is consensual and it happens in the privacy of his car, hotel room or the officers home. How about the Staff NCO who has an insatiable wife who likes to do guys in the platoon? Is that good to? It is consenual
I do agree with the point that a civilian spouse has a lot of ways to go after his/her spouse who is serving in the armed forces. You know the UCMJ exists when you go in and you know it is pretty strict live your lie to a higher standard, make better decisions etc.
I love my husband, boyfriend, and children. They are all a part of my family. I want us to all be able to live together. I want to be able to hold my boyfriends hand in public just like I can hold my husbands hand in public. I want to be able to kiss my boyfriend in public just like I can kiss my husband in public. I want to be able to hug my boyfriend in public without people spreading rumors that I am cheating on my husband.
Right, great idea. Maybe they should come up with a medal or ribbon for bad ideas. Seems like the cadre of people being drawn to the armed forces these days are chocked full of them.
So, if the PFC wants to have a fling with the Colonel's wife, we are all good with that? I mean, it is consensual and it happens in the privacy of his car, hotel room or the officers home. How about the Staff NCO who has an insatiable wife who likes to do guys in the platoon? Is that good to? It is consenual
I do agree with the point that a civilian spouse has a lot of ways to go after his/her spouse who is serving in the armed forces. You know the UCMJ exists when you go in and you know it is pretty strict live your lie to a higher standard, make better decisions etc.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
CPT (Join to see) - A you move the rules of engagement today you can rest assured someone will be pushing on the next line. You (or others) want their behavior/conduct allowed by the UCMJ but you only move the line for the next person/group that wants it moved. When you start sliding the scale, all things can come into play. One need only look at the current state of affairs in the armed forces today.
It doesn't matter if my examples are common or not. If we want to make any sort of consensual event okay then these would be okay and not likely to create good order and discipline.
It doesn't matter if my examples are common or not. If we want to make any sort of consensual event okay then these would be okay and not likely to create good order and discipline.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MAJ Bryan Zeski - When you move the goal posts, expect the next group that wants to do their thing to move them again. If any/all non monogamous relationships are good to go, these situations would be/could be acceptable. Both the PFC and the Colonel's wife consent. Who are you to say their relationship is wrong or unacceptable. See how that logic works. Everyone wants the rules bent to accommodate them but still restrict others using the rules they just shifted to accommodate them.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Cpl Jeff N. I don't think it would be "wrong." It would be against UCMJ because it could be detrimental to good order and discipline - because it's within the unit.
That's how work life and private lives can be separate.
That's how work life and private lives can be separate.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
“Why isn’t one person enough?” Check out more awesome BuzzFeedYellow videos! http://bit.ly/YTbuzzfeedyellow MUSIC Jacuzzi Licensed via Warner Chappell Produc...
Cpl Jeff N. - I think that the military has a long history of punishing its own people for not sticking to a specific moral ideal that doesn't even reflect reality.
I'm not sure how any of this is against good order and discipline. If anything it aligns itself because people can actually be truthful about their lifestyle.
I will say this... if this is the first time you've really had to think about this it can be a total shock to your sense of what's right or wrong. This is an idea that takes time to process.
To often in the military we attack an issue with an opinion just like we'd attack an enemy.
Different is not bad. If that was the case, the .1% of Americans that are in the military would be all bad. And we know that isn't the case.
Please don't confuse nonmonogamy & polyamory with swinging. COMPLETELY different.
Give it 20 years and living this way openly will be the norm. It has always been common, but people hid it or they had affairs, or they just turned a blind eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1gsI3e0u4&list=PL9XFNda0qshmvZ-37Fhe2F-a_iCUgFueR&index=4&t=0s
I'm not sure how any of this is against good order and discipline. If anything it aligns itself because people can actually be truthful about their lifestyle.
I will say this... if this is the first time you've really had to think about this it can be a total shock to your sense of what's right or wrong. This is an idea that takes time to process.
To often in the military we attack an issue with an opinion just like we'd attack an enemy.
Different is not bad. If that was the case, the .1% of Americans that are in the military would be all bad. And we know that isn't the case.
Please don't confuse nonmonogamy & polyamory with swinging. COMPLETELY different.
Give it 20 years and living this way openly will be the norm. It has always been common, but people hid it or they had affairs, or they just turned a blind eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o1gsI3e0u4&list=PL9XFNda0qshmvZ-37Fhe2F-a_iCUgFueR&index=4&t=0s
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think you are wrong. The sanctity if marriage is becoming a big one era, for whatever reason. Also having sex within the same organization is prejudicial and accounts for too many possibilities of indirect issues, whether suspected or proven. Favoritism, special treatment, or the opposite. No place for it in the military. Love thy neighbor, don’t sleep with his wife.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CSM,
As a former Christian I understand your perspective.
Sanctity is a religious term pretty specific to Christianity, as is the commandment you paraphrased. It is also concept that is rejected by many, and to force them to accept them is to basically make them practice your religion.
The military is secular and outside the chapel religion must give way.
Again, fraternization and proper conduct rules should be respected.
Anyone who doesn't think relationships happen in a unit already is kidding themselves.
As a former Christian I understand your perspective.
Sanctity is a religious term pretty specific to Christianity, as is the commandment you paraphrased. It is also concept that is rejected by many, and to force them to accept them is to basically make them practice your religion.
The military is secular and outside the chapel religion must give way.
Again, fraternization and proper conduct rules should be respected.
Anyone who doesn't think relationships happen in a unit already is kidding themselves.
(1)
(0)
CSM Darieus ZaGara
My point is not based on religion, it is based on common decency. Of course we know that these relationships occur. Most who become serious come clean and request transfers so that the persuit of the relationship can be accommodated, post seperation/divorce. The very act of cheating while married (to me, and not based on faith)tells me a lot about the individuals involved. I will get off my soap box. CPT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Here it is! Episode 1 of our new show on Netflix: Explained. There's two more at http://www.netflix.com/explained right now & new episodes every Wednesday. S...
CSM Darieus ZaGara
I respect your view.
I do think that your conception of what I'm suggesting is pretty far off. Ethical Nonmonogamy is not cheating. Cheating is unethical by it's very definition.
https://youtu.be/DCGyLjBjuGI
I respect your view.
I do think that your conception of what I'm suggesting is pretty far off. Ethical Nonmonogamy is not cheating. Cheating is unethical by it's very definition.
https://youtu.be/DCGyLjBjuGI
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
CSM Darieus ZaGara - I think that the core of "cheating" in a relationship isn't necessarily the act of sex with another person, but rather the dishonesty and lying that usually accompany it because it's not an agreed upon situation for all parties. You can have "cheating" in all sorts of areas in a relationship that aren't based in sex (or even other people). You could have financial "cheating" where one person is spending money or hiding money from the other - and that would be similarly devastating to the relationship. However, if all the parties are in the know and in agreement as to the relationships, I don't think it is really "cheating." To put it in other terms, while playing poker, all the cards are what they are - a 5 of Clubs is a 5 of Clubs, and Ace of Hearts is an Ace of Hearts. Now, if I play a one-eyed Jack as an Ace - that would be cheating, but if we, before the game starts, agree that one-eyed Jacks are wild cards, then it would NOT be cheating.
Cheating is a breech of trust. It really doesn't have anything to do with sex.
Cheating is a breech of trust. It really doesn't have anything to do with sex.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google