this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
128 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2228 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

South Korea's constitutional court on Thursday narrowly upheld a law banning same-sex relations within the armed forces, citing a possible risk to the military's combat readiness in a ruling criticised by activists as a setback for gay rights.

Under the country's military criminal act, members of the armed forces face up to two years in prison for same-sex relationships. The law has been referred to the court and upheld by it four times since 2002.

In Thursday's five-to-four ruling, the court said allowing same-sex relations could undermine discipline within the military and harm its combat capabilities.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DerpyPoint@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What an insult to the gay men who are willing to serve the country no matter what

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

gay men who are ~~willing~~ forced to serve.

Military service is not optional in South Korea.

[–] miseducator@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

That's the thing: most of them are not willingly there. Military service is compulsory for all able-bodied, South Korean men.

[–] phx@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does this mean gay sex between serving members or include while on any sort of leave etc.

Between members makes sense (but should apply to sex in general)

[–] Selmafudd@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Imagine having to fill out the leave application

Purpose of Leave: gay sexy time

I have no idea if same sex marriage is legal there but would be really weird if you could be in a same sex marriage but while enlisted can't have sex..

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In Thursday’s five-to-four ruling, the court said allowing same-sex relations could undermine discipline within the military and harm its combat capabilities.

Hello, Korean constitutional court? Ever heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes? Being gay only made them stronger

[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

How are relationships in the military (particularly south Korean) usually handled. I read the article but was unable to find out if this ban is specifically for couples within the armed forces or if it also applies to a relationship with someone outside of the armed forces. Is there a difference for heterosexual relationships? I'm unsure of how South Korea recruits for the military (conscription or volunteer) but do they not accept people in certain relationships? I would love to know if anyone has the answers.

[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They can´t be serious, everybody knows that the armed forces consist almost exclusively of men!

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

This claim is especially dumb and nonsensical if opposite-sex relationships are still allowed, since those impact combat readiness way more. Especially when they are relationships where one partner is in a higher position of power.

So no blue on blue?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


SEOUL, Oct 26 (Reuters) - South Korea's constitutional court on Thursday narrowly upheld a law banning same-sex relations within the armed forces, citing a possible risk to the military's combat readiness in a ruling criticised by activists as a setback for gay rights.

Under the country's military criminal act, members of the armed forces face up to two years in prison for same-sex relationships.

In Thursday's five-to-four ruling, the court said allowing same-sex relations could undermine discipline within the military and harm its combat capabilities.

Activists said the law fuels violence and discrimination against and stigmatization of gay soldiers.

"This continued endorsement for the criminalization of consensual same-sex acts within the Korean military is a distressing setback in the decades-long struggle for equality in the country," Boram Jang, Amnesty International's East Asia researcher, said in a statement after Thursday's ruling.

South Korea has one of the world's largest active armies, with all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 28 required to serve between 18 and 21 months.


The original article contains 226 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 25%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Might be next to be outlawed

[–] LoafyLemon@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Not on active duty!