"pandering, sodomy and wrongfully engaging in sexual acts with another person while being filmed with the intent of broadcasting the images over the Internet for money."

Wow it wouldn't be bullets you'd be watching your back for in a foxhole with those guys.

However it was discovered, this conduct is unacceptable as an armed forces soldier. It's not homophobia, engaging in sexual acts on the internet on a pornographic site is completely against the military's code of conduct. Wouldn't you think that wanking your buddy on a webcam violites the don't ask don't tell policy? That's basically telling several million people you're a homosexual.

But that's  aside from the point that the real problem here is with the pornography. You just can't do that while serving in the military.

My bad on the porn site. I want to research this before I post any more, and I'm too tired/lazy to do it tonight.

i dont care if they're **edited** but if was posted on a web site with a military theme then i do. heck i have a problem with heterosexual sex with a military theme, i think its just disrespectful to the uniform. again if they wanna be **edited** thats them, let them on there own time in there private homes, but not on film...

i to am curious to see the heterosexual who found this site.

Although I do find the military in general to be extremely homophobic, the people in that story are retarded.

It's disgusting and unprofessional to do a military-themed porn, no matter what sexual preferance it panders to. I'm sure there are homosexuals in the military, I don't have a problem with them, but I do have a problem with perverts and exhibitionists. I wouldn't want to be in a squadbay with one of those guys any more than somebody who'd make a porn of themselves having kinky sex with women.

Even if they were **edited**, they were stupid to make porn.

DBibeau855 wrote: I have a feeling a lot of you dont know why we have a dont ask dont tell military policy in place. Its because of brain dead rednecks, and baptists.

Sounds like you don't know either.

Bill Clinton put the don't ask don't tell policy into place.

Also, I don't see any problem for homosexual men in the armed forces. The policy states that soldiers may not engage in homosexual activities. Well, you're not supposed to be engaging in any sexual activites when you're not on off time, if I'm certain.

A soldier is there to fight, not to be "**edited** and loud". When you join the military you throw alot of ideals out the door.

Let me remind you what the military does-it kills. It is a killing organization, where men and now women are pushed to their limits to learn how to kill. Sexuality shouldn't even be a matter here. So what if you have to keep your mouth shut?

Should we lock men and women up together while in basic? Granted, we should trust their restraint, they won't bang each other during the night. But do you really think a bunch of 18 year old guys are going to stay focused with a roomful of girls the same age in their underwear all around them?

So then if a man finds men attractive in the same way, you engage the same problems.

I don't understand where all the g.ay rights organizations get off moaning because g.ay men can't be boyscout leaders. Let's stick some men over little girls why don't we?

You can't trust anyone to control their sexual inhibitions. Would anyone here with children or younger siblings leave their younger daughters or sisters with a total stranger teenage guy? I mean, very few teenage guys have predatory feelings towards little kids right? But you wouldn't take the chance.

Which is why you wouldn't mix coeds in bootcamp, which is why you don't want openly g.ay men in with other men.

And before some dumbass jumps up and says "zOMG! he sed g.ay men is rap0rz!" I simply said that you can't leave the control of sexual tendencies up to the individual. It would be nice if you could, but you can't.

That said, I'm sure 99% of all g.ay men go through boot camp without feelings for their bunkmates (no pun intended). I'm sure they're fine soldiers and whatnot, but I know being placed in a roomful of female cadets would make me a little uncomfortable, so I would think a g.ay man would feel the same way with men.

That's my analysis. Flame away (once again no pun intended)

Ok, strato, I'll flame away.

You accuse DBib of not knowing what he talking about, and then you spew a big pile of random nonsense and speculation.  gg.

Yes, Clinton put the don't ask, don't tell policy in place.  This was a significant RELAXATION of the prior policy.  A big step for g.ay rights.  Also, with a GOP congress, he wouldn't have been able to get any more.  I'm am surprised he got even this much.  Clinton has always been outspoken in favor of g.ay rights, decades before he went to the White House.   (And, of course, he is a redneck baptist)

strato wrote: Well, you're not supposed to be engaging in any sexual activites when you're not on off time, if I'm certain.

At least you acknowledge this as speculation.  On and off time is a bit theoretical.  But more to the point - here's nice tidbit:  women in the military are CONSTANTLY getting pregnant (Lynndie England, anyone), particularly on Navy ships, and often while married to other men.  Does the military take disciplinary against the men/women engaging in adultery/fornication?  No - they send the women on paid maternity leave. 

Bottom line - straight folk in the military have lots of sex - with civilians, with each other, and with themselves.  But it is a VERY rare situation when straight people get disciplined for sexual behavior, unless it involves rape or an officer's wife.  G.ay people are treated differently.

strato wrote: But do you really think a bunch of 18 year old guys are going to stay focused with a roomful of girls the same age in their underwear all around them?

OE NOEZ!  Quick, delete this post, before Al-Qaeda realizes that all they have to do to defeat our highly trained soldiers is send in some strippers!!

You have a very sad view of the military.

This point is so idiotic that it doesn't even warrant detailed rebuttal.  But I will make one quick observation - various armies throughout time have included men, women, and/or homosexuals, and they have all done quite well.  Spartans, anyone?  And, of course most of our allies around the world (Israel, all of Europe) allow men, women and/or homosexuals to serve together with little or no restriction. 

Instead of speculate about the effect of homosexuals, all we have to do is basic observation of military organizations that have organized the distinction for years.

I saw your post, brihard, and I don't necessarily disagree, which is why I didn't respond.

My comment would simply be that it doesn't have to be that way.  History, both ancient and recent, tells us that it doesn't have to be that way.

A good friend of mine (West Point, Gulf War) who is VERY anti g.ays in the military, put the fairly persuasive argument to me (somewhat similar to yours) that the function of the military is to be effective, and the military should not be the place for social experimentation.  His view was that the military should lag, not lead, social trends.

That position has lots of merit.  It can, however, be taken too far.  Just like we ought not play social games with our killing machines, we ought not exempt them from basic morality either.  As much as the military has a function, it is also part of society.  The US military clearly does a very poor job of teaching their people basic people skills, as evidenced by the extremely high level of domestic abuse and/or murder within military families.

The military has a responsibility, both to itself and to society at large, to not allow fundamentally unacceptable attitudes and behavior to exist, let alone be institutionalized.  The military cannot get a pass on decent behavior.  This, of course, begs the question of whether the level of homophobia in the military rises to the level of "fundamentally unacceptable" - and that I think is where the discussion should be focused.  While I obviously have personal opinions on that point, I have no clear answer.

Separately, I note that virtually every single point raised in opposition to g.ays in the military was previously raised in opposition to blacks in the military.  The comparison to women is temporally convenient, but the closest substantive parallel is to blacks.

mbro wrote: I'm guessing you've used that argument against him before.

Quite a few times.  He does not accept the black/g.ay analogy, primarily on religious grounds.  He is a serious fundamentalist.

Jack Carver wrote: Where you have to communicate, interact, live with people. And that's where the problems come from.

Think about that...   so we are apparently in agreement that homosexuals are as capable of soldiering well as straight folk.  We are apparently in agreement that g.ays are not all rapists that will be assualting guys in the showers (unlike straight folk, who apparently can't stop from assaulting each other in the nation's military academies).

So we are all apparently in agreement that g.ays in the military are not a problem at all - so long as the straight folk don't know about it.

When the only thing that changes to cause a problem is that suddenly the straight guys learn that a fellow soldier is homosexual (he was presumably just as g.ay ten minutes earlier), HOW ON EARTH is that anything but the straight guy's problem?

Sounds like we are all agreeing that g.ayness itself is not a problem - it is the AWARENESS of g.ayness that is the problem, and the attitudes held by straight folk.  Why should it be the responsibility of g.ays to hide in the closet, just so to not offend the bigots?  That is about an unjust result as I can imagine.

DBibeau855 wrote: Its not supression. If you are indian, and your culture dictates that you wear a turban, and you arent prepared to cut your hair and take off the turban, you dont join the army.

Actually, most European armies now permit turbans specifically to accomodate Sikhs.

But even so - homosexual is simply something you ARE.  Even if you were completely celibate and followed all the rules, and shot a bunch of terrorists, the US military would still kick you out simply for declaring yourself g.ay.  It has nothing to do with DOING.

Carver wrote: Because the straight folk and the bigots are the 99.9% majority. And you're not gonna change the attitudes of 99.9% of the army on a subject like homosexuality.

And this exact argument was raised when blacks were integrated.  It was wrong then, and it has not improved with time.

DBib wrote: There are people in the military that will time and time again make sexual slurs at a person, wear them down so much as to make them an inefective soldier, make sure they are the first person through a door every time during a room sweep. There are people that willfully do this to african americans.

Thank you for bringing in the blacks - my point exactly.  And if we have some white soldiers that are harassing black soldiers for being black, do we not discipline the white soldiers?  If we applied the g.ay policy, we would instead give the black soldiers a DD for being black.

DBib wrote: my familiarity with policy is mainly geared to US Army policy

And so it is with most people in the US.  Most people could stand to examine other countries.  The ENTIRE EU has unlimited open g.ayness in the military, and their armies seem to be working fine.  Israel has had men and women serving side by side, in combat outfits, for decades (see Dr. Ruth the sniper), and they also seem to be doing fine.

The fact is that the US is BEHIND the curve on this as to the countries to which we normally like to be compared.

DBibeau855 wrote: Yes, i know. But you also have to consider the huge culture gap between the US and the Europeans..

Very true.  These do not translate directly at all.  I use Europe as an example of how it is possible to have a perfectly well functioning military despite deep societal homophobia (which is just a deep/strong in some parts of the EU as it is here).

And our country just hates anyone that is different. We hate the french, and many people dont know why, they just do. This country is full of biggotry weather we realise it or not. Our culture is a materialistic and biggoted culture.

Which, to me, is an argument for MORE pro-g.ay policies rather than the opposite.  It is specifically BECAUSE of the general American xenophobia that we NEEDED the Civil Rights Act and similar rules.  If we were better people this type of thing wouldn't be needed.  It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military.

It is specifically because of the entrenched homophobia, IMO, that we need to take more aggressive action to beat it.  It won't go away on its own, to the detriment of all.

mbro wrote: Clark Kent wrote: It took an act of Congress to integrate blacks into the military. Executive Order

DOH!

I do believe you are correct.  My bad.

Clark Kent wrote: You accuse DBib of not knowing what he talking about, and then you spew a big pile of random nonsense and speculation.  gg.

Actually, you entirely missed the point of post here. I wasn't accusing DB of anything-he said that braindead rednecks and baptists were responsible for the existence of don't ask odn't tell. And he was completely wrong in that. Only about one eighth of my post was directed towards him-the rest was my opinion. And it was speculation. 

Clark Kent wrote: This point is so idiotic that it doesn't even warrant detailed rebuttal.  But I will make one quick observation - various armies throughout time have included men, women, and/or homosexuals, and they have all done quite well.  Spartans, anyone?  And, of course most of our allies around the world (Israel, all of Europe) allow men, women and/or homosexuals to serve together with little or no restriction.

Actually, you missed my point altogether. I was referring to basic training. Our military, as you said, is responsible for alot of pregnancies.

My whole point was that during the training  of a recruit it was important that he or she was completely free of distraction. And I said for 99% of all people this wasn't a problem. I probably didn't explain my post clear enough, so it's my fault, but I think you missed the point entirely.

stratoaxe wrote: you entirely missed the point of post here.

And to the extent that I missed the point, please ignore my snippy reply.

Jack Carver wrote: The difference between g.ays and straights though is a lot bigger than that. Being **edited** is unnatural. Natural--like nature. Where males and females have sex to reproduce. Sexuality is something that goes a lot deeper than skin color, and I realize you don't see it like I do, but it's a big gap.

Thank you for proving how common irrational bigotry is around here...

What makes statements like this really sad is that it sounds good to all the idiots that believe it. 

Maybe I'll get around to responding in substance later, but I don't want to get distracted from the military discussion at the moment.

Jack Carver wrote: And I used the whole nature thing as my argument. In the entire rest of the world besides humans, male and female always hook up. It's how nature works.

PFP

Jack Carver wrote: And yeah, it is getting better, but it is a slow process, so maybe right now is not the best time to try to integrate g.ays into the military.

You're a little behind dude...

Alright, to those of you saying that you can't mix people who are sexually attracted to each other in boot camp, be they male or female, **edited** or straight, you're wrong.

I know Rambino is usually on people's cases about using anecdotal evidence, but after a week or two in a bootcamp setting, you have no sex drive. Maybe it's the food, maybe the physical stress or being mentally preoccupied. I don't know. But I tell you what, nobody ever woke up with morning wood, nobody ever got caught pulling their pud, except for one case a few days in, probably before the setting took it's toll.

Maybe this was because Marine Corps Recruit Training is still segregated by sex, but there were female recruits around, and plenty of attractive young women in skimpy clothing who would watch recruits on family day and graduation day. We as a group had little to no interest. Not just because the drill instructors would get on our cases if we looked, but we no longer gave a crap. Training just moves to fast to be preoccupied with sex. I mean, a lot of stuff happens to people there, people start having seizures and need to be hospitalized, people get hurt occasionally, but you don't dwell on these things. I doubt allowing openly **edited** men into the military would lead to pillow fights, giggling, and orgies after lights in training.

What is this 'nature' you speak of?

It sounds like you are simply claiming your thoughts on 'normality' as 'nature,' becuase animals such as Mallard Ducks have often shown acts of homosexuality...

http://imageshack.us -

Nevermind.

Sorry, Hades, but I have to part ways with you on this one.

First, the issue is about the code of conduct, not whether or not they were g.ay. Had they been hetero soldiers doing the same thing, they would have been treated just as harshly. You do not, as a soldier, do things that cast the country or our military or civilian leaders in a negative light. It doesn't matter how flaming homo you are, hate George Bush, or zealously religious, you sign up for 8 years, you know going in what you are signing up for and honor the code you accepted.

With that said, the soldiers need to be court-martialed on multiple accounts:

• conduct unbecoming a soldier
• g.ay sex acts
• immoral sex acts

They should have stifled their flamieness either until they got out, or kept in on the down-low. They did something stupid and I for one, hope they get fried.

Jack Carver wrote: What percent of the population is g.ay? I have no idea, but I'd bet a cool million that it's less than the percent that is black. That already makes blacks more accepted since there are more of them. Then, what is different b/t blacks and whites...? Well there's skin color, culture, maybe physical build, by a little, other things. The difference between g.ays and straights though is a lot bigger than that. Being **edited** is unnatural. Natural--like nature. Where males and females have sex to reproduce. Sexuality is something that goes a lot deeper than skin color, and I realize you don't see it like I do, but it's a big gap. And because of that, the gap is going to be closed even slower than that of race. And lets look at the race gap. Hmm... what is it? like 2006 or something and there's still racism everywhere you look. It's not as simple as "getting the rest of the army to accept g.ays". I think it's unrealistic to think things will get better any time soon. Till then..... move to Europe.

dumbass.  last time i checked a g.ay person has all the organs i have.  bleeds the same color blood i do.  has the same bone, brain, cardiovascular, etc. structures just like me.  this is the same argument that made blacks "inferior" during the slave trade days, back when native americans were "savages."  you, have yet to see that each person is a freaking human.  NO matter the fact if they are homo or hetero. 

it is people like YOU, why there is racism.  just accept the fact that they live amongst us, and get on with your life. 

Hades wrote: Goodsmitty: I am suggesting that the code of ethics soldiers are being forced to adhere to is in itself wrong. So what if a soldier participates in sodomy on his/her own time? I fail to see why the practise is against the moral codes in the first place.

The codes of conduct apply to a soldier 24-7. You cannot grow a beard on leave (and get caught), grow your hair long on leave (and get caught), or do anything that casts a negative light on the military or its leadership. I know it sucks, but that is the way it is. That is the reason why I am such a staunch and outspoken critic of the war and Der Bush's policies-because the soldiers cannot be.

If you believe that a soldier's orientation is none of uncle sam's business, then that is your right. However, at this point in time what the soldiers did was wrong, knew it was wrong, and need to be disciplined. They cast a negative image on the service with a military-themed sex show for everybody to watch on the internet. What gender they performed their stunts with is irrelevant.

I can tell you from experience of leading 25 soldiers in a very high operational-tempo unit that you cannot tolerate disobedience. Soldiers cannot be allowed to pick and choose the rules they abide by in the garrison, and then be expected to follow an order on the field that goes against all sane reckoning. Imagine if it were you who were laying a puddle of blood waiting for someone to pull you out of a hail of gunfire. Would you want a bunch of free-thinking new-age radicals at your rescue, or highly-disciplined (mostly homophobic) robots that will answer your call, despite their own danger? I choose robot.

Now, don't turn this into a "g.ays in the military" thread. I know they have served honorably, but that isn't the issue. The rules are the rules, they broke them knowingly and deserve to be punished.

P.S. don't construe this as me agreeing with everything Dibi says. This is the first time we have ever agreed on anything

brihard wrote: Smitty, if you're willing to satisfy my curiosity, what is(was?) your rank and military background? You certainly seem to know your stuff.

I was an active duty Army Captain (chemical corps) from 95 to 04. I was a company executive officer twice and platoon leader in the 12th Chemical Company and 11th Aviation Regt.