Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-15-2011, 09:53 PM
transitapparent transitapparent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: portsmouth va
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swingers View Post
all im saying is, with DADT repealed. it is easier for the SINGLE (by civil and military deffinition) service members to practice polyamory. but do you think they will ever loosen the deffinition of adutery to only includ incidentses that were not consentual by all partners and spouses involved? the military would probably require some kind of memo or contract stating that the married couple is in a non-monogomous relationship freely and consentually.
there is nothing saying a single person can't be poly. they're not married so there is no adultery.

as for being married. it says wrongfully had intercourse. if it's consensual nn-monogamy, is it wrong??

DADT never had anything to do with non monogamy anyway. once DADT is repealed, all it means is that if you are gay or bi and in the military, you can now tell the people you work with. there will also be a change to the UCMJ article pertaining to sodomy, making it OK as long as it's consensual.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-15-2011, 10:09 PM
swingers swingers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 46
Default

thank you very much for that informitave responce. although i am military and currently practicing swining, i had never actually looked up the leagal implications. (stupid of me) but we have been paranoid and tried to make sure we keep a good secure lid on what we were doing. i guess where we foul up is the fact that we actually try and stay withing the military community when we explore. our logic was that if we stuck with military they understood more of the life that we live and the risk we take enguaging in.... extracirricular activities as a married couple. but now realizeing that, usually, only military would know the ins and outs of UCMJ if they would intend to burn us. so, when it comes to the element of promisquity that accompanies swining, i think we should stay with civilians, but when it comes to searching for likeminded polyamourus people, i think military should be cleare of vindictive people.

what do you think? this is just me free wrighting, but is there a incident anyone can show where service members were prosicuted under UCMJ because of either their poly/swing/kink activities (besides under the dont ask dont tell policie reguarding homo/bisexuality)?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-15-2011, 10:18 PM
transitapparent transitapparent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: portsmouth va
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swingers View Post

what do you think? this is just me free wrighting, but is there a incident anyone can show where service members were prosicuted under UCMJ because of either their poly/swing/kink activities (besides under the dont ask dont tell policie reguarding homo/bisexuality)?
I personally have never seen anyone prosecuted for poly. I work with a guy who swings and is pretty open about it actually. I have seen 1 person prosecuted for adultery. 45/45 but this guy was sleeping with another guys wife in his own shop. I was there when they got caught to make sure my friend didn't kill the guy.

I think as long as you keep it under the radar (don't talk about it at work or anyone you work with who may not understand) you will be fine.

and like I said DADT is a totally different set of rules. even after the repeal, the military doesn't recognize gay marriage. still no adultery.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-15-2011, 10:50 PM
swingers swingers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 46
Default

Im thinking it could be ther 3rd or 4th person in the relationship, if there was a fude or something between, if they so chose, i suppose they could bring it to the command as a form of retribution.

i do remember a case of either a brittish or canadian general who was procicuted becaus of posting himself on a local swinger websight, but the charge was because he had opened himself up for blackmale, not the moral implications about it. but that wasnt in the US.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:30 PM.