Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on February 27, 2006, 08:59:17 am
-
Seven US soldiers have been charged over offenses linked to their appearance on a gay porn site.
The men are charged with "sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex for money while being filmed", Reuters reports. One is also charged with adultery.
Four of the accused have already received "nonjudicial" punishment - they were confined to barracks for 45 days, demoted to private, and given extra duties. The remaining three members of the 2nd battalion of the 82nd Airborne will be arraigned 7 March.
The army is pushing for all seven to be discharged.
Army investigations began in January after it emerged that some military-themed gay porn sites were using real soldiers.
Specialist news site Fleshbot reports that the site involved is likely to be "Active Duty" - registered in Fayetteville, near Fort Bragg - home to the 82nd Airborne. The site offers membership from $24.95 a month.
The 82nd Airborne is one of the most revered US military units - it was involved in the Normandy landings, the invasion of Grenada, and the first Gulf War. According to its website the Airborne is "America's Guard of Honour", at just 18 hours notice it can achieve: "forcible entry into any area of the world" and its soldiers "have always been ready and willing to jump into danger".
The US Army has a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude to homosexuality - homosexuality is not a bar to service but homosexual conduct is - guess that includes making gay porn.
(Sorry, but I just had to post this for the sake of the puns)
-
Fred Phelps is going to have a field day over that :(
Though, it does promote the question 'Which Officer discovered their pictures on a Gay porn site and how?'
-
Was one of the soldiers of the second name 'Parts' and ranked as a Private?
-
Fred Phelps is going to have a field day over that :(
Fred Phelps needs to be shot. Repeatedly. In the face.
-
Fred Phelps is going to have a field day over that :(
Fred Phelps needs to be shot. Repeatedly. In the face.
Don't be stupid - that's horrible!
You need to start with the legs and work up, that way he'll suffer longer.
-
Charged with Adultry? You have to be kidding me! You'd have to lock up just about every single sailor who every got shore leave in the far east on that one.
-
Charged with Adultry? You have to be kidding me! You'd have to lock up just about every single sailor who every got shore leave in the far east on that one.
You have to be married to commit adultry. :p It's probably falling under the more general heading of "conduct unbecoming" at that.
-
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word single :p
-
You know, I didn't even interpret it that way until you said it. :blah:
-
I, for one, think the military would do well to wax a little Dionysian. Maybe they'd stop frowning and yelling all the time.
-
'Green and Brown? With these shoes? Not a chance luvvie!'
-
****ing ridiculous is all I have to say on this matter.
-
Fred Phelps is going to have a field day over that :(
Fred Phelps needs to be shot. Repeatedly. In the face.
Yes, he is a rotten crazy bastard. But I would think it would be better to for him to die of natural causes, and then find himself being judged for his hateful ways. Imagining him cry out "how was I WRONG?!?" in front of his dear fluffy Lord is much more satisfying for me than imagining him riddled in the face with bullets.
EDIT: On the subject of the porn, I have to say I'm dissappointed in them. They shouldn't have done that, they should have just kept their practices to themselves. All this is is more fuel for an already out of control fire.
-
EDIT: On the subject of the porn, I have to say I'm dissappointed in them. They shouldn't have done that, they should have just kept their practices to themselves. All this is is more fuel for an already out of control fire.
If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?
-
EDIT: On the subject of the porn, I have to say I'm dissappointed in them. They shouldn't have done that, they should have just kept their practices to themselves. All this is is more fuel for an already out of control fire.
If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?
Ah, hell, you called me out. Let me say first of all, I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy. And the point I was trying to make in that comment was that there are a lot of nut jobs like Fred Phelps out there who will use this to further their agendas. I didn't mean to upset anyone, I tend to word things a little poorly when I write my opinion.
-
I would...
EDIT: This was in response to Raa's post directly above this one. Would like to clarify that I just don't like the idea of soldiers in porn videos (of any kind).
Of course I don't like the idea of soldiers torturing people perversely either...
-
I would tend to agree, apparently this was more important to them than their military careers. But that was their decision, and I will respect that. That's what free will is for.
-
Well, I respect their free will to make the decision, I just think the decision to bring even more shame on the US military was a poor one. If they weren't soldiers, I'd go with the "I'll fight to the death your right to say it" proverb. But meh, just discharge 'em/demote them. That's all that needs to happen. It's like if somebody does something bad in a school, you punish them. The matter's settled already I think.
-
I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy.
Yeah, and I'm not anti-music, just anti-instruments.
-
I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy.
Yeah, and I'm not anti-music, just anti-instruments.
Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex? Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.
-
I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy.
Yeah, and I'm not anti-music, just anti-instruments.
Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex? Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.
I believe you may be. Either that, or I hope you fall in love with a woman without a vagina.
-
I'm not doing this. I am not getting drawn into a sparring match about personal views. It happens every time I get involved in a debate like this.
Raa: I am sorry to have offended you. This is not the way I had hoped to first talk to you. I had seen your personalities on Game Warden and Sectorgame, and we share many of the same interests. It's just right now, I'm in a constant crisis state between trying hard to be open minded on sexuality, and trying to be somewhat religious as well, and the two don't seem to mix. At any rate, sorry.
-
Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex? Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.
I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)
-
Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex? Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.
I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)
All of what you say is absolutely true. Perhaps then, you misunderstood me. When I said sodomy, I meant specifically buttsecks. Anything other than that, in my views, is all good. Does that clarify things a bit?
-
Well yes, but then there's the practical issue of gays not being left with too many options.
-
I can think of a few things, but if I say them here, it might give some people the willies. :nervous: :p
-
Well then I can't imagine that they're much more decent than "buttsecks".
-
You would probably be right, too. I personally just consider the backside a "dirty" zone (yes, I know it sounds old-fashioned), and to some extent the mouth, though not so much. But I should probably stop there, as I'm probably putting images in people's heads. But hey, whatever works for you. It just wouldn't work for me.
-
I don't care what you think about the issue (well, I do, but oppinions are seldom changed by internet words). However, I really wish your faith would not dictate how I can live my life. Especially when I don't believe the same as you.
-
Are you trying to tell me that it's not possible for two men to be in a loving relationship without sex? Because if that is the case, I have been carrying serious delusions.
I'm telling you that sex is integral to love, regardless of orientation. We're taught to fit sex and love into the classic dichotomy of physical versus spiritual, superficial versus meaningful, and this is a completely distorted interpretation of the nature of human interaction. Sex is not simply a drug that we take to enhance our relationships; it is the basis of what we consider the spiritual notion of love. You can't have the non-corporeal without the corporeal-- it's empty, unfullfilling, and it will collapse. As much as it flies in the face of America's sloppy, simplistic Platonism, the establishment of a spiritual relationship must begin at the physical level, (which, ironically, was a concept articulated by Plato.)
I'm half in agreement with you - personally I don't think I could fall in love with another bloke without the physical aspect, but it's not a tautology - the no sex before marriage crowd, if it still exists, for instance. And if sex is so integral to a loving relationship, then what about when you're incapable of having it? Can the heavily disabled not love, in that case? When you get to 70-80, are you no longer capable?
Well yes, but then there's the practical issue of gays not being left with too many options.
For the boringly uninventive, perhaps.
-
For the boringly uninventive, perhaps.
Okay, I really don't like where this thread is heading... *runs out of thread*
-
I can think of a few things, but if I say them here, it might give some people the willies. :nervous: :p
You have no idea how humourous that sentence is to us Brits do you? :p
-
I believe you may be. Either that, or I hope you fall in love with a woman without a vagina.
:lol:
In any case, on-topic, I absolutely agree with Raa, this is just :no: It's pretty damn stupid reason to be demoted and/or possibly discharged just because you took a few pictures of yourself or something. Doesn't the army have better to do? :rolleyes:
-
Unless you find looking at Lesbian Porn disgusting, I seriously suggest people take a good long look at their ethics.
-
Ah, hell, you called me out. Let me say first of all, I am not anti-gay, I'm only anti-sodomy. And the point I was trying to make in that comment was that there are a lot of nut jobs like Fred Phelps out there who will use this to further their agendas. I didn't mean to upset anyone, I tend to word things a little poorly when I write my opinion.
People shouldn't, however, have to hide their lifestyles because some bigoted idiot will use it to attack them; it's not much different from making black people 'white up'.
Worth noting, though, that studies have indicated (human, at least) sex does not serve the sole purpose of procreation but is a key method in the process that allows partners to determe each others suitablity/compatability, etc.
-
If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?
yes, but that wouldn't give people like you the opportunity to cry "OMG!!111 theyre singling them out because theyre gay!!!1111 OMG bigotry!"
-
When was the last time you saw an officer sentenced for adultery Stealth?
Do you really think any officer who commits it should also receive the same punishment?
Oh and cause this is too amusing not to post.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Paras.jpg)
No offence meant but :lol:
-
I am sorry, but this is simply too good to pass. I guess I will nominate you to one of the film awards :wakka:
-
If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?
yes, but that wouldn't give people like you the opportunity to cry "OMG!!111 theyre singling them out because theyre gay!!!1111 OMG bigotry!"
It is bigotry, because like Kara said, regular adultry isn't prosecuted. They are being singled out because they're gay. The only time that heterosexual sex results in punishment is when a female officer becomes pregnant, wether it be in the navy, or abroad.
-
Excuse me folks, but aren't they being prosecuted for making porn?
-
You would probably be right, too. I personally just consider the backside a "dirty" zone (yes, I know it sounds old-fashioned), and to some extent the mouth, though not so much. But I should probably stop there, as I'm probably putting images in people's heads. But hey, whatever works for you. It just wouldn't work for me.
LOL. Yeah, you are putting images into people's head. This thread is amusing.
edit: man, everybody has soo many posts these days and half of mine seemed to of disappeared.
-
Excuse me folks, but aren't they being prosecuted for making porn?
Considering that it's legal to make porn in the US I can't see how. Unless there are only certain states you can do it in.
-
I guess at a streatch if any of the men involved are officers then they can argue for "Conduct Unbecomming" (man I could say something about that but I won;t he he). For the enlisted guys they can't charge them with that.
This is much adu about nothing... Clinton should have ordered a addition to the policy, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't friggen CARE!!!"
My unit mates practically cheered when they found out I buggered a married woman when I was in the Army in Florida (her husband was, shall we say, dominated by her into accepting her needs). Had this been in Texas THEN I would have committed a crime, even though it was hetero sex. Damn you Texans. give me my anus! (no, I didn't say ANGUS!) :P
One time at AIT in Texas, someone got a tape stuck in the first floor day room. It was a parody of Eddie murphy's "Comming to America". Change the last two words to "In America" and you get the picture... :D
-
If they were involved in heterosexual porno videos, would you make that same complaint?
yes, but that wouldn't give people like you the opportunity to cry "OMG!!111 theyre singling them out because theyre gay!!!1111 OMG bigotry!"
It is bigotry, because like Kara said, regular adultry isn't prosecuted. They are being singled out because they're gay. The only time that heterosexual sex results in punishment is when a female officer becomes pregnant, wether it be in the navy, or abroad.
1. Are you serious?! I've never heard this rule before. You are right, that is bigotry. So you're saying that if they taped hetero-porn and showed it, they would not be in trouble? If so, then that's just f***ed up.
and
2. I had a long talk with some Christian friends of mine this morning about the Christian faith in general. Apparently, I've been taking this religion way too seriously, and at one point was getting dangerously close to becoming more like Pat Robertson (If that ever happens, somebody kill me). And Raa, I also wish that Christians wouldn't dictate how others should live their lives. They could afford to be a little more "let alone". My disappointment was not in the fact that gay porn was made, but rather their poor judgement if they did indeed value their military careers. And again, at the time, I was under the impression that any sexual act in the military was punished.
Three years ago, I wouldn't have said some of the things I have. My problem was that I listened to, still listened to, and to some extent believed, everyone. Now I can't get get the mixed signals out of my half-autistic, literal mind. I only listened out of an instinct not to offend anyone. In that respect, on this thread, I have failed. I will repeat this: I'm sorry for offending anyone, check the second part of my fifth post back on page 1.
In any case, it seems what I need to do, in all aspects of my life, is lighten up.
-
I just thought they were in trouble for making porn in while enlisted in the military, because well...that doesn't reflect well on the military (gay or straight). Also, IIRC, gay men are supposed to be discharged from the military if found out. The military tolerates them by adopting a "we won't ask, you don't need to tell us, so we'll have no problems" policy. So...they made porn (looks bad on the military) and they broke army regulations (by "telling" they were gay). They should be discharged according to army regulations. It's not just "well, this wouldn't have happened if they were straight". It is to a degree because they had to go "advertise" their sexuality. Also, being involved in a porno film (hey, I didn't say gay porno, just porno...to clarify) reflects badly on the Army as an organization. The army isn't subject to "labor laws" and "must hire" laws. They can kick you out for whatever they want, and if conduct unbecoming of an officer is one of them, they can boot them.
Of course the arguement is made that if a straight guy went around commiting adultry he doesn't get punished. Well, then I'm sorry, but I wish he did. Although I can guarantee that if a straight guy was involved in "army porn" with some girl on the internet, his CO would be pissed at him too.
-
The army isn't subject to "labor laws" and "must hire" laws. They can kick you out for whatever they want, and if conduct unbecoming of an officer is one of them, they can boot them.
Ignoring how blatantly discriminatory the army is, if a soldier does anything in his own spare time, or on leave, etc, how does that have bearing on his career? Barring anything illegal, of course.
-
When was the last time you saw an officer sentenced for adultery Stealth?
Do you really think any officer who commits it should also receive the same punishment?
They gave a Marine lieutenant what amounted to a slap on the wrist for it at Pendleton a week ago or so. It gets more stringent the greater your rank, though. Above field-grade a charge of adultry will pretty much end your career. It makes you a security risk, see.
In this case you're also choosing to ignore the particularly blatant manner in which the offense was commited. Civilian courts assign greater sentences on that basis all the time; why should a court-martial be any different?
Considering that it's legal to make porn in the US I can't see how. Unless there are only certain states you can do it in.
You basically surrender most if not all of your constitutional rights by joining the military. So no, if the Army says you can't do that, you can't do that. You are subject to a completely different set of laws.
-
They gave a Marine lieutenant what amounted to a slap on the wrist for it at Pendleton a week ago or so.
Exactly. These guys had already recieved their slap on the wrist for it too. No need to bring further charges in a formal court-martial.
It gets more stringent the greater your rank, though. Above field-grade a charge of adultry will pretty much end your career. It makes you a security risk, see.
The fact that these guys were busted down to private tends to speak against them even having held the rank you state in the above example. So again why the formal charges?
In this case you're also choosing to ignore the particularly blatant manner in which the offense was commited. Civilian courts assign greater sentences on that basis all the time; why should a court-martial be any different?
Greater sentences, yes. Greater charges?
-
The army isn't subject to "labor laws" and "must hire" laws. They can kick you out for whatever they want, and if conduct unbecoming of an officer is one of them, they can boot them.
Ignoring how blatantly discriminatory the army is, if a soldier does anything in his own spare time, or on leave, etc, how does that have bearing on his career? Barring anything illegal, of course.
Because it reflects poorly on the image of the US Army Officer. The punishing is to keep up the image that things that are unbecoming of an officer aren't tolerated. You're on leave, you're in your spare time, but you are still an officer in the United States military and you still must present a good image of that (I'll admit it's not always the case that people do, however).
-
I don't have a problem with that. I can understand why they'd have a problem with officers bringing the uniform into disrepute. The problem is if they are discriminating against people who are gay as if being gay somehow brings disrepute. If they punish any hetrosexual to the same degree I wouldn't have a problem with it but I doubt you'd ever see a straight man (or woman for that matter) being charged with sodomy.
-
Wait a minute. Are you saying sodomy is a greater charge than regular sex...whatever the term is in military law? I don't understand how you reached that conclusion. And surely if such incontrovertible evidence of sodomy occurred between two straight partners, they would be prosecuted for it.
-
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying I don't see anyone other than gay men being charged with sodomy.
Are you claiming that if a home sex tape of some soldier having anal sex with his wife were to turn up the soldier would face a court-martial on sodomy charges?
-
Solatar, it actually is "just" the porn and not about the "don't tell" policy. How is them making a video telling the Army? If they were on leave, and talked with a friend about being gay, would that count as telling? I highly doubt that a hard copy cassete of the video was made, the soldiers walked up to their CO and said "Sir, you should look at this. It clearly shows us performing homosexual acts." It was posted somewhere on the net, probably. So they could not be discharged for telling the Army they were gay.
As to the porn itself...what happened to the old "If it doesn't hurt others, it's not a crime" thingy? Two adults are doing something - which they agreed on doing - somewhere in the world. That gives ground for complaint to people who object to the act? I could just as easily claim that some random other act was immoral - say, playing FS2. A soldier posts on HLP, and is promptly discharged for conduct unbecoming.
Sorry if I'm offending anybody, but I have extreme views on laws based on religion-caused-norms.
As to the Army being able to discharge at will because soldiers give up their rights... 1. That would make conscription an extremely large-scale violation of the constitution, punishable by immediate impeachment. 2. It is doubtful whether even a voluntarily-enlisted soldier, who is a US citizen living in the US, could be denied any and all of his rights against his will at the time because of a prior agreement.
Finally, admittedly the whole issue of morality laws is different with regard to demotion/extra duties/discharge from Army.
-
When you get to 70-80, are you no longer capable?\
One of my flatmates last year did volunteer work at an old people's home, and apparently the most common category of diseases contracted in such places are STDs... make of that what you will.
-
I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying I don't see anyone other than gay men being charged with sodomy.
Are you claiming that if a home sex tape of some soldier having anal sex with his wife were to turn up the soldier would face a court-martial on sodomy charges?
I'm not sure, but I would think so - it's not healthy for the military to have two of its personnel parading their actions on home videos. If not that, then surely some kind of sexual misconduct charge that carries an equal weight. I doubt the situation crops up regularly - and if it does, it ever reaches the media.
When you get to 70-80, are you no longer capable?\
One of my flatmates last year did volunteer work at an old people's home, and apparently the most common category of diseases contracted in such places are STDs... make of that what you will.
Eyyyech.
-
I'm not sure, but I would think so - it's not healthy for the military to have two of its personnel parading their actions on home videos. If not that, then surely some kind of sexual misconduct charge that carries an equal weight.
Why any difference?
-
Black Wolf, I did not know that... Thank you for soiling my mind even furher of my future in an old folks home... (Too much information) Now, if you said that YOU caught one form there that would be more relevant, but that clearly was out of your way! :LOL"
As for how this turned out to be discovered... WHO is watching Gay military porn and WHY? (Should we change this to - Don't watch, don't tell?") :D
ACLU Lawyer: "Your Honor, how can my client be charged with Conduct Unbecomming, when you can clearly see him cumming SEVERAL times in this segment alone!" :LOL: (sorry, couldn't resist!)
-
As to the porn itself...what happened to the old "If it doesn't hurt others, it's not a crime" thingy? Two adults are doing something - which they agreed on doing - somewhere in the world. That gives ground for complaint to people who object to the act? I could just as easily claim that some random other act was immoral - say, playing FS2. A soldier posts on HLP, and is promptly discharged for conduct unbecoming.
Tehnicly, you can set any standards you like that your men have to fill If you're the boss.
Be it behaviour, clothes, looks, knowledge, attitude, or whatever.. Sounds discriminatory, and to a point it is, but there has to be some kind of filter one way or another.