Gay Pride?

[ANAPROP]

So the Army is taking part in Gay Pride and even running a recruiting stand at the event! Oh well it's legal these days I suppose. Next they'll be knocking the Berlin wall down, giving wimmin the vote and letting them fly!

[effortless]

giving wimmin the vote and letting them fly!

You bl**dy fool, you said that out loud! Now you've put it in their heads they'll want it.:eek:

[stillin1]

Just one more thing they try to ram down yer throat:E

[ZH875]

They like it uppem Capt Mainwaring...

[Roadster280]

Apparently you crabs were there last year (i.e. before the Army).

Doesnt matter what your sexual orientation is when you get bayonetted/nuked/otherwise slotted though. Or which service you are in.

Its living with the fudge packers in peace time thats the hard part, being such a culture shock for most.

A closet glue-gargler came out on the day it was legalised in my unit a few years back. Instant billy-no-mates.

Salute, turn to the right, march out.

[pr00ne]

Careful Roadster280, you may let some of your more narrow minded prejudices show through.

[[email protected]]

Careful Roadster. pr00ne is not only an ex-crab but a lawyer as well. Talk about an officer with a map being the most dangerous thing alive ... imagine an officer, an internet connection and a law degree! Scary.

I had to laugh though. I assume ANAPROP is a crab, I assume he/she/it doesn't read RAF News (or is it now 'Wot U need 2 red'?) and the RAF's triumphant recruiting debut at last year's Gay Pride.

I think the Army's only shame here is being second.

[MarkD]

Apparently they had a Jag on the float last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1557304,00.html

Of the three armed forces, it has a reputation for having the most progressive attitude towards homosexuality.

Hasn't met Beags then have they :D

[Maple 01]

"We would welcome the navy into the festival. Perhaps one day there will be a navy float playing [the Village People hit] In the Navy.

Sorry, can't think of a witty aside to add to that.......

[Roadster280]

Terribly sorry, didnt mean to offend anyone (except maybe the fudge packers)

Personal sexual preference is for women, two wives later, might just have found the right one this time.....

I left about 6 months after the ban was lifted.

Having spent 10 yrs regular, 5 yrs TA before that, it takes a little more than a political order from the MOD to remove the indoctrinated prejudices. In fact, come to think of it, it wasnt just indoctrinated, it was the LAW. No homosexuals in the forces, admin discharge if you were lucky, via Colchester if you werent.

To turn round one day and effectively say "these people we have taught you to hate over the years are now your friends" was hard to accept for most.

I dont really have any prejudice against these people, after all, I signed up to fight and die for them. It just went against the grain, thats all.

As for prejudice against the RAF, having been posted to two RAF camps in my time, it's just banter. We all have our jobs to do. If we all do them correctly, we will get the overall job done. Nothing wrong in a little rivalry though.

When I was in the Army, having been on two RAF stations, I later thought I wish I had joined the RAF. Not so sure now though, the RAF is having a hard time. And I am older, it was half a lifetime ago that I joined up.

Per Ardua Ad Astra, except there always seemed to be less Ardua in the RAF than the Army!

Green or various shades of blue, we all do/did an excellent job.

[Pilgrim101]

Load of bollocks !

Sexual orientation and personal choices are for the individual. One of the hardest (?) b:mad: s in my regiment was gay; it was well suspected but nobody gave a sh:mad: t because he was a soldier par excellence. Some of my proclivities in the bedroom with my girl friend would make your hair curl and make other practices look normal but I'm not telling ! Who cares ?

He did say to me once when he was well pi:mad: d that he loved me like a brother, which comforted me somewhat until he added the postscript that he used to s:mad: g his brother !! :}

[Rev I. Tin]

Some of my proclivities in the bedroom with my girl friend would make your hair curl and make other practices look normal but I'm not telling ! Who cares ?

I care. Please, do tell.

Confess all sinner.

Rev I. Tin

[[email protected]]

Bet my girlfriend will make your hair curl more than your girlfriend .... muhhahahaa.

Oh no, she was a he before the RAF let him become a she.

[Roadster280]

Pilgrim,

Not sure what I said that you think is bollocks. I was making the point that after holding such a blatant corporate antihomosexual stance, having laws against it, taking action to find and dispose of transgressors, to do a u-turn was going to be more difficult than a simple order. Anyone think it was an easy thing to bring in?

As for your regiment having a gay bloke, good for you. So did mine, as it turned out.

I was at our training school at the time, and our CO got all of us permanent staff in the lecture theatre, and gave us the news. He then opened to the floor for questions. Highly unusual, COs don't do question time!! I remember one old and bold Sgt asked what should he do if he sees a pair of men kissing on the dance floor in the NAAFI on a Saturday night when he is orderly sgt. No big deal if its a man and a woman, but men?? This is the point I was getting across.

Im not anti homosexual, I just found it difficult to accept at the time, and I still have reservations about it being the right thing in the military, given its history makes it what it is today. Should we then permit long hair? Its just a personal preference. Thats my point.

As for your bedroom practices, I don't want to know. Thats the way it should be for all, straight or gay. Anyway, whatever you get up to, I bet we have all seen worse porn.

[tablet_eraser]

Roadster, as an openly gay RAF officer, I have to say that comments like:
Its living with the fudge packers in peace time thats the hard part, being such a culture shock for most.
and:
A closet glue-gargler came out on the day it was legalised in my unit a few years back.
are ineloquent, miss the point, and belie your ignorance of the prevailing views of the Armed Forces. Trying to justify it afterwards, in the face of mounting criticism, doesn't really change the fact that you made the comments in the first place. I don't find such comments offensive, just a little bit sad. So, the facts:

Meeting gay people is NOT a culture shock for most people joining today, and you're assuming that when gay men are in a dorm or 12x12 all we think about is seducing our fellow personnel. We don't. Like everyone else, we think about strangling the snoring techie in the next tent.

The ban was never enshrined in law, and required no legislation to be lifted - just a declaration from the leadership. The rule was an order, not a legal principle. This is why Parliament did not have to approve the policy change. But then, since Parliament contains enough woofters for it to be able to host Mr Gay UK if it so chose, I suppose it's a mere point of interest.

The Conservative Government stopped people being sent to Colchester for their sexuality in 1994. The only reason people went there was because joining and not declaring your sexuality meant that you were disobeying a direct order. Remove the order, and you remove the offence. Let us not forget that Mr Major was boffing Ms Currie at the time - surely in the light of such horrors you can forgive homosexuality?

Finally, comparing homosexuality with long hair is disingenuous and plain stupid. Who are you??? Being gay is NOT a choice. Being prejudiced IS a choice. :hmm:

The policy change was an overwhelming non-event, especially for new recruits. The young people joining now (I joined after the ban was lifted) simply do not have an issue with gay personnel. I can vouch for that, and I have friends who agree too. The simple fact now is that I can live my life without fear of invasive personal interviews concerning my sexuality, and without fear of dismissal for something I have no control over (big news... I didn't choose to be gay!). Most people honestly do not care whether the person they work with is gay, as long as they are professional.

Lest we forget, the Armed Forces want the best people from society to join our ranks. Banning people from joining on the basis of their sexuality risks banning some of the very people we need - intelligent, healthy, physically fit men and women with the desire and capacity to lead and prevail in difficult circumstances. Gay or straight, does it really matter?

In other news, I see that the gay lifestyle magazine Attitude has done an interview with serving gay officers from the RN, Army and RAF. Very good indeed - if it appears online I'll post a link.

[An Teallach]

Well posted, Tablet. However, I don't think you were the first homosexual person to post on this thread. Methinks some of the ladies here doth protest too much.

[FishHead]

Nicely put Tablet...

Your comments about Roadsters choice of words was suitably restrained - personally, I would have just said he was a prat!

[BEagle]

MarkD, the thought of what gay men do with one another indeed makes my hair curl. Or would if I had any..

BUT - and it's a big BUT - they do what they do by mutual consent and it's none of anyone else's business. Which is infinitely preferable to the bullying and witchhunting which used to go on before Pink Wednesday came about, in my view.

However, wasn't the "Don't ask - don't tell" philosophy of another country's armed forces rather simpler and easier for all to accept?

[An Teallach]

Beags

"Don't ask don't tell" only makes sense for 2 groups of people:

1. Self-loathing closet homosexuals.
2. Those who wish to keep gay servicemen and women liable to blackmail.

I generally find that this whole subject elicits a reaction of rampant disinterest among well-adjusted, heterosexual people.

I confess to being rather intrigued that you seem to be the only man in the country for whom the repeal of the previous imbecilic policy was of such import that you can remember the day of the week upon which the decision fell.

[BEagle]

OK - I guess I misinterpreted the idea behind 'DA - DT'. I thought it meant, and as you quite rightly say most well-adjusted people would probably agree, that the question of the orientation of others should be of absolutely no interest to anyone else.

After 'Black Monday', 'Pink Wednesday' was merely a way of reminding people that the previous policy had irreversibly changed and was not intended to be in any way derogatory or humiliating. It was a term which others more senior than me adopted at the time.

Commerce refers to the 'grey pound' and the 'pink pound' with respect to the disposable income of particular groups in society in a similar vein. Apologies if it caused offence.

[Lima Juliet]

On the subject of choices...

Marmite drilling is not my bag...that IS my choice. Also as a hetero I have always employed the motto of "Why use the taxiway when the runway is perfectly serviceable?":rolleyes: Therefore, should it be my right to decide that people who do it for gratification are not my choice of people to hang around with?

As Devil's Advocate, if it's alright to shower and share a room/tent with gay men, then why can't I do the same with women that I am attracted to? (I have had varying degrees of sucess with regards to this in the past!). Equal opportunities? I don't think so... :hmm:

LJ

PS If it were natural, I would have ovaries up my back-side!
PPS Taking cover...Remember this is a banter forum!!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

It is absurd to expect mature men (and "maturity" suggests that one's values, tastes and philosophy are at least stabilised, if not set in concrete) to change attitudes towards homosexual activity from abomination to acceptance within a space of a few years. It is not so many years ago that such activity in the armed services resulted in cashiering and probably imprisonment. The current relaxed attitude that the services are encouraged or obliged to adopt exposes the hypocrisy of the old hierarchy. Under the old regime it was common knowledge at the coal face in all three services that a certain number of individuals were bent. But they were often good soldiers, sailors or airmen; and so long as they behaved themselves with discretion, the straights usually ignored their eccentricities and did not not go squealing to the plods.

It is nonsense to expect servicemen to make a crash change of attitude to appease the PC liberals. A gradual integration would be the best way forward - perhaps with units "manned (?)" exclusively by gays.

Are there any suggestions for the RAF's first Gay Squadron? Number (Surely it must have a hole in it)? Colours? Heraldic badge? Motto ? (No prizes for "Botttons Up, Chaps!" unless you can supply a free translation into Latin)

:) ;)

[BEagle]

31


















Sorry! Old story and a cheap shot.....

[FishHead]

US policy has actually been changed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass".

Of course, the critical thing is "Don't Tell" - if you 'tell' someone (through being in a bar with a clientle that is all same-sex, in an online dating site, or through a private conversation overheard) then they will still kick you out.
The US forces have lost a ridiculous number of people because of this policy, including 20 Arabic linguists and 6 Farsi linguists in the last few years - if that isnt cutting off your nose to spite your face I dont know what is...

[BigX]

Quite appalled by this thread. Of the eclectic mix of intelligent, well-informed, humorous and occasionally downright piss-taking threads I've enjoyed on PPrune, this one is the very first I can honestly say has utterly appalled me within seconds of reading. It shames a fair number of the individuals who have replied so far.

I presume the opening thread was intended as light-hearted; but the disservice done to the military reputation by some of the replies is otherwise. One of my highs from 17 years as a member of the military flying community was that I recognised a generally tolerant bunch that worried little more than getting the job got done and done well - bombs on target on time, then a few tall frosty ones in the bar. Sure, jokes were made regarding sexuality, but at the end of the day, we all got on with the job and left alone what was none of our business.

Most importantly, however, and irrespective of your personal views on political correctness, the legalisation of homosexuality, or indeed whether or not Pink Elephant cocktails were a sensible drink to quoff in quantity at Goose Bay, the simple fact is that many non-military do read these threads. All they can possibly perceive from this particular thread is a group of outdated, bigoted individuals whose credibility in other, far more worthy, threads has been undermined by their ill-advised comments here – including those supposedly well-balanced replies that then caveat their sudden fear of being ‘outed’ with quips regarding hair-curling or packers. For heaven’s sake, grow up.

Agree with me or not; be homophobic, sexist or not – either is your right. However, please consider what image you are painting of our esteemed and extremely professional trade in the wider community before airing your views - condemned by the rest of society - so publicly. ‘Mein Kampf’ might have (briefly) enjoyed popular status, but history has since condemned that author as a right pillock too!


Warning! Air Attack Red!

[16 blades]

I do not give one solitary sh1t about the sexuality of the bloke next to me - the only thing that concerns me is whether or not he can do his job.

However, I personally find the concept of a bloke shagging another bloke truly sickening. For those who choose to partake in this practice, that is their business and is none of mine.
Agree with me or not; be homophobic, sexist or not – either is your right
Absolutely correct - as is my legal right to hold and express those views (Article 12, Human Rights Act ) - so why do you try to dissuade us from doing so?
this particular thread is a group of outdated, bigoted individuals
Replace that phrase with "Traditional social values" which, lets face it, are sadly lacking in today's excuse for a society, and a different picture emerges. I for one have always been proud of the fact that the Forces hold traditional values in high regard and do not readily sway with whatever fashionable wind happens to be blowing - it is part of our ethos, and as been for a long time. To play devil's advocate for a moment, explain why the vast majority who have held these traditional views for so long should be made to throw them out of the window overnight to appease a tiny, but highly vocal, minority?
your views - condemned by the rest of society
Really? What society is this, exactly? I think you'll find that a sizeable majority of men throughout society STILL find homosexual acts to be highly distasteful - the fact that most now have a 'live and let live' attitude does not change this. Perhaps the society to which you refer is the one where the politically correct minority are the ones who shout loudest and are heard most, but as usual the silent majority are just that - SILENT, and TOLERANT. One can tolerate something whilst still being physically sickened by it, as long as it isn't "rammed down your throat" (to quote an infamous WRAF!)

What really boils my piss is when the pinkos try to present homosexuality as 'natural' and 'of equivalent status' to a normal relationship. It is neither. Sex exists because we have a need to reproduce. One cannot reproduce by shoving one's nob up another bloke's arse, to put it bluntly. It is therefore not natural. Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children. A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment, nor is it (according to most views) anywhere near as stable. And it is IMPOSSIBLE for a queer couple to 'have' a child - at least one of them, and possibly neither of them, will have ANY biological input to the process whatsoever. Mother nature, in her wisdom, has decreed that it takes 1 man and 1 woman to reproduce, a fact that we cannot change even in the most perverted of scientific endeavours.

As I said right from the off, I really don't care about a colleague's sexuality. In fact, I recently discovered that a bloke I have regularly worked with is a tail gunner. If there is something about you that makes you stand out, you will get banter for it. He did, in vast quantities, and took it as it was intended - banter. When somebody gets all huffy, and politically-correct about it, and starts counselling others to guard what they say, is when it becomes a problem IMHO.

I will speak as I feel. I am legally entitled to do so. You will not change the way I think, nor many others for that matter. Does that make me an 'outdated bigot'? Maybe, but that's just YOUR opinion, which is no more or less valid than mine.

16B

Edited to make clear: I am NOT intolerant or bigoted towards homosexuals, as I believe I have explained. I simply detest the politics of sexuality.

[FishHead]

marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children
Gosh.... I can think of so many examples which disprove this theory that I hardly know where to start...

[16 blades]

..and doubtless many examples from 'the other side of the stamp' that show 'stable' homosexual relationships.

Look at the situation as a whole, not just the few examples of peolple you know with bad marriages / several divorces behind them.

You may be able to quote me ten or even twenty examples to support your point. There are six BILLION people in the world. For your twenty I could point out TWENTY MILLION that support my view. That is MY point.

16B

[FishHead]

Actually, I was more thinking of the infertile straight couple... not much point them getting married now is there.

Nor any woman over the age of 40 (or so) - not without resorting to "scientific endeavours".

[tablet_eraser]

16B

Thanks! I'm obviously wrong - my being gay is totally unnatural. How silly of me to think that since I was born this way, it must be my Creator's intention for me to be gay. Obviously I'm a pervert who should have no legal rights to serve my country - in fact, maybe I should just castrate myself now.

For God's sake, man, things have moved on! We're not all vocal and nasty; I am not, and never will be, a fan of the likes of Peter Tatchell. I will not accept, though, that the Armed Forces should be run based upon "traditional values". Not long ago, "traditional values" included sexism and racism. I don't hear many people calling for those halcyon days to be restored. Well, not many people whose opinions carry any impact for the young personnel joining today. I'm guessing you don't fall into that bracket; I'm guessing you don't realise that the opinion of most of my new colleagues is that it's a good thing that gay personnel are not discriminated against.

Homosexuality IS natural. As natural, at least, as having red hair (a similar proportion of the general population), or having no earlobes (a similar proportion of the general population) or having two different coloured eyes (no idea). About 2-6% of the UK's population, according to recent scientific surveys.

This has nothing to do with "appeasing a tiny but vocal minority". It has everything to do with a simple recognition of the fact that my service is as valuable as anyone else's; therefore, why should I face intrusion and discrimination just because, as you so eloquently put it, I'm a "tail gunner", a "pinko", a "queer". For all that and everything, I'm a commissioned officer and I'm proud to serve alongside people who do not hold your outdated - yes, outdated - views on human sexuality.

Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say; but I will defend, to my death, your right to say it". Spot on. He also said that democracy should be about the majority protecting and respecting the minority. Maybe you could learn from that?

Finally; how dare you claim that my relationship with my partner is not "stable", or that it somehow lacks value? What the hell can you say to back that up? THAT I did find offensive. Just because I'm gay, doesn't mean I'm out to shag every man I can. Grow up, for God's sake.

[BEagle]

A 'pinko' used to mean someone who was a 'bed wetting liberal closet Commie' (or similar) in hick red-neck speak. Nothing at all to do with sexual orientation!

[tablet_eraser]

Beags

I know - and I'm not a bed-wetting commie liberal! Libertarian conservative is where I fit in on the political radar... though some think I'm somewhat more Right-wing on some issues.

That's why I'm offended when accused of being a pinko!

Cheers

Tablet "Il Duce" Eraser

[RiskyRossco]

Actually, contravening populist sociological theory, homosexuality is a choice. Biologically there are two states - male and female. With the accordant emotional "tendencies" and rôles.
Emotionally there are variegated degrees of conditioning, via family, social dynamic, public education institutions and humanist philosophical drivel. It's so prevalent and widespread that, in contrast with absolute moral and sexual training, those who hold to the truths of the latter are shouted down by the liberal majority and as many as are swayed by public groundswell of opinion.

No wonder so many are confused. If you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything.

And, for the record, I know and meet with a 'gay' friend regularly. Pillar of his family and quite witty. I am also what the liberal radicals would class as "Christo-fascist", or fundamental born-again Christian, yet I separate the 'sin' from the 'sinner'. Yes, he considers himself outside of God's redemptive plan ( only because he believes the lies) but that doens't mean I judge him on it.
I'm equally guilty of sin in other areas. We all are. That's the nature of sin, and it goes a long way to keep me humble in my attitude but - I'm still a work in progress. Glad that God's working it ;)

[mystic_meg]

This thread is getting a little heavy......

so...

Who was the only 16 stone jockey to have ridden a Derby winner?....


























...........Lester Piggott's cellmate...:E

[henry crun]

tablet_eraser: Other terms for homosexuals have been used in this thread which you appear to object to.

Are these alternative definitions any different to the corrupted use of the word gay ?

[effortless]

Traditional values?

I wonder why we talk about rum, bum and the lash?

[Flap62]

Tablet,

A point has been mentioned several times on this thread but has not been answered by you or any of your "chums".
Males and females are not allowed to share communal sleeping and ablutions as the privacy of the individual must be protected. The fundamental principal behind this is that as heterosexual men find the female form (with many obvious exceptions!!)attractive, then there would be the temptation to look at them in a voyueristic way. The reverse is also true although to a lesser degree ie most women will not moisten at the sight of a well toned beer gut.
You have, by your declaration of sexuallity, stated that you find the male form sexually attractive. Why should you be allowed to share communal facilities with other men?
The answer, in short, is that you should not.
This would therefore mean that the military now have to provide 4 segregated accomodation and washing facilities, both at home base and on deployed ops. This is impractical in terms of cost, space and the fact that the military no longer have materiel to support this policy.
Before you launch into the old "homophobe" rant, I now work for an airline where the majority of male cabin crew are gay. I have absolutely no problem with this. I accept that an individual's lifestyle is their choice as long as it has no impact on anyone else.
In the military your sexual orientation has an effect on the operation. This is not to say that any individual is not capable of performing effectively, of course they are. However, if for example, I was part of a unit asked to deploy to an FOB where facilities were basic, I would be within my rights to refuse to share sleeping and washing facilities with a homosexual, just as a female could not be forced to live with males. This presents the local commander with a problem that he really doesn't need.

[Scud-U-Like]

Flap62, segregating male and female accommodation is simply a matter of convention. If this is proving such a problem, how come, four years since the lifting of the ban, I've yet to hear of one example? Doubtless PPRuNers would be the first to let us know.

In order to create perfect communal harmony, perhaps we could allocate OOA accommodation on the following basis:

Men
Women
Gay Men
Lesbians
Snoring Men
Snoring Women
Snoring Gay Men
Snoring Lesbians
Flatulent Men
Flatulent Gay Men
Flatulent Women
Flatulent Lesbians
Women who want the light on
Lesbians who want the light on
Men who want the light on
Gay men who want the light on
Men who stumble in pissed, just as you've got off to sleep.............oh, nearly forgot:

Bisexuals (single room)
Snoring bisexuals (single soundproofed room)
Flatulent bisexuals (well ventilated single soundproofed room)

I could go on. What is a detco to do?

[ZH875]

As long as you remember to split the Hossifers and Erks up as well.

Also remember as well as Men and Women, you need an area for members of the race previously known as WRAFs.

[Gainesy]

an area for members of the race previously known as WRAFs.

Dog Section.

[BEagle]

The only thing remotely canine about any of the 'race formerly known as WRAFs' of my particular acquaintance was that the nickname 'Lassie' might have been rather appropriate for one or two of them..... :ok:

:E

[tablet_eraser]

Scud-u-Like, funniest post so far... I like it!

Flap62: I am NOT going to accuse you of homophobia, as you raise a valid point. I think an equally-valid point is that I want to serve my country and have the right and ability to do so. I do not look at men lustfully in the shower block on exercises and ops. In fact, we all accord each other the degree of privacy and dignity to which we are all entitled. I mentioned earlier that the policy change is reliant to an extent on the goodwill and good behaviour of all it affects. That's why we have the Service Test. Let a gay man make moves on me in a shower block, and I can guarantee I'll be complaining as vocally as you would.

By the way, this post marks the first time I've used the word "homophobia" in 4 posts (including this one). I don't accuse people of homophobia lightly - it's a very strong, emotive term and I have yet to encounter someone who is genuinely homophobic.

After all, as so many people are proud to point out (usually after complainiang about gay personnel and emphasising their masculinity in whatever way they deem necessary)... we don't actually have a problem with homosexuals.

I've been impressed with the quality of this debate, and it's not been without some cracking banter. And Scud-u-Like's post (maybe you should submit it as a GEMS idea?). Good work all!

[Scud-U-Like]

Indeed, we all have and are entitled to our prejudices, likes and dislikes. We are, however, expected to temper them, for the greater good of unit cohesion and out of respect for our fellow man.

For example, I am an atheist (I really am, by the way), who finds most judeo-christian dogma abhorrent and could, therefore, take great exception to the Service devoting resources to religious observance and to having uniformed Christian preachers appointed over me.

The solution: Get over it.

[Grum Peace Odd]

I could go on. What is a detco to do? Split the groupings you list equally in to the 2 available blocks we already have. So that would be:

Flatulent Men (of any sexual orientation).
Everyone else.

[An Teallach]

I recall during an officer selection exercise @ 150 potential officers of both sexes were being assessed.

In the finest traditions of the service after a 3 mile run in the rain and mud, we were pointed at the gym and told we had 3 minutes to be showered, changed into our suits / ladies' equivalent and be back outside ready to march off to the classroom and take the written exams.

On entering the gym there was one shower room @ 30' square with about 20 shower heads in it.

We all stripped off and jumped into the shower and started washing. It was only when the hairy-@rsed Jock RSM came in and nearly had an apoplectic fit that we realised that the girls had done exactly as the boys and we were all in the shower together.

It will obviously come as a surprise to Flaps62 that none of the gay or straight chaps had got excited in the shower, no women had thrust themselves upon the men (or vice-versa) and folk of both genders managed to bend down to pick up the shower gel and pass it around without the slightest fear of molestation.

These people who automatically assume they are God's gift to gay men (or straight women) never cease to amaze me.

Perhaps the table legs in the Flaps62 household are kept covered lest the sight of a well-turned Queen Anne ankle should cause such an upwelling of pent-up lust that he might lose a fly-button!

[Huron Topp]

These people who automatically assume they are God's gift to gay men (or straight women) never cease to amaze me.

Really don't think thats the truth. As has been mentioned, we are talking here of hundreds of years of "indoctrination". To assume that it will disappear at the stroke of a pen is rather childish.

When I left the Service some 14 years ago, I realized that I had become somewhat of a Neanderthal. Any bloke with hair past his collar was a "fudge-packer" as were those with earrings. Strangely, from my cultural background, guys with long hair and multiple ear decorations was the norm. So whats a guy to do?

Me, I ended up with hair to my butt and 4 earrings.:uhoh: Really gave me a basis of understanding what gays were going through. Guys that I'd been on ops with suddenly shunned me. Hair and rings are gone, BTW.

Having had a few (damned Rhum thread on JB:} ) hope this makes sense. It ain't what a guy/gal does in private that matters (drugs excepted:mad: ). If they do the job, especially if done well, who the f^ck cares?

Perhaps the table legs in the Flaps62 household are kept covered lest the sight of a well-turned Queen Anne ankle should cause such an upwelling of pent-up lust that he might lose a fly-button!

Queen Anne...Never! French Provincial however...ooh, la, la :ok:

Now, back to to Captain Morgan...

[Flap62]

Rather confused now. Tablet - you say that you never look at men lustfully - why?
I can honestly say that if I were to be put in a shower-room full of women, I would definitely find the situation interesting. I like women and so would look at a naked one given the chance. You like men but say you wouldn't look at one. What happened to the "we're just the same as you, we just like men, that's all" banter.
Still haven't had a proper answer to how we're going to manage all these segragated facilities. The comments of "oh where are we going to draw the line" misses the point by a million miles. You talk about rights. Well as a heterosexual man, and let's not forget we are still by a very great margin the majority, I would demand the right to have seperate facilities from any gay personnel. Rights work both ways!

[Baskitt Kase]

If you are white, do you also demand your 'right' to segregated facilities for people with a different skin colour?

[Maple 01]

If you were black would you be branded a racist if you demanded the 'right' of your children to be taught in 'one race' schools?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4326007.stm

The answer seems to be NO


Racism, like sexism and homophobia can always be thrown in the face of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant hetrosexual Male - everyone else seems exempt

Fair doos - bad for one group, bad for all

[Scud-U-Like]

Maple01

A lot of people, including some of those quoted in the bbc news article, clearly do think such action is racist.

I think most people know a bigot when they see one, regrdless of the bigot's religious, racial or sexual characteristics.

Flap62

What makes you think judging others by your own lecherous standards is going to provide you with an answer to your rather tedious and repetitive assertion?

[16 blades]

Tablet,

Homosexuality IS natural.
Prove it. Or at least give some convincing evidence. By 'natural' I mean 'as nature intended'.

At what point did I say YOUR relationship is unstable? I did not single you out personally in this, nor would I. I admit perhaps that part of my post could have been worded better - what I was trying to convey was that gay relationships, WHEN TAKEN AS A WHOLE AND AGGREGATE STATISTICS ARE COLLECTED are MUCH less stable than normal relationships.

Please read my post again. You will notice I said things like:
I do not give one solitary sh1t about the sexuality of the bloke next to me - the only thing that concerns me is whether or not he can do his job.
And:
As I said right from the off, I really don't care about a colleague's sexuality.
And:
Edited to make clear: I am NOT intolerant or bigoted towards homosexuals, as I believe I have explained. I simply detest the politics of sexuality.
I would happily work with you, and I genuinely don't care what you do with yourself in your own time.

16B

[Scud-U-Like]

The jury's still out on the 'nature or nurture' debate, but 'nature' seems to be slightly ahead these days.

Homosexual Link to Fertility (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/wgay13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/13/ixworld.html)

Non-human Animal Sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals)

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html)

[Maple 01]

Scud, my point was that the 'ist' card is played whenever someone from the majority WASPH (invent your own social shorthand here) start talking about 'rights' or voices fears - whether or not those fears are accurate or demands reasonable - However, the same knee-jerk reaction doesn’t happen when those demanding 'rights' come from minority backgrounds - In the example I gave I didn't see the chap from the CRE condemned as a bigot, threatened with dismissal and ordered to undertake compulsory 'Equality and Diversity' training. Imagine a white headmaster making the same comments?

Stupidity and bigotry is an equal opportunity employer. ALL minorities also have their share of card carrying 'ists'. Perhaps it would be better to address ALL forms rather than the current concept that only White=racist/sexist/homophobic. Perhaps addressing the genuine concerns of that marginalized WASPH grouping and either showing that their fears are groundless, or doing something about the percieved social injustices might help and reduce the numbers sweapt into the arms of an ever greatful BNP

[tablet_eraser]

Well, all I can say is that I have always known which way my sexuality was going and never made any choice concerning it. Sounds like that's the way nature intended for me. And as Scud points out, far more intelligent and expert people than you or I are rapidly coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is a part of nature. It's been in existence for thousands of years - and, indeed, it wasn't always the social evil it was considered to be not long ago. In Plato's Republic he set out an ordered list of human relationships based on the idea of forming a social hierarchy. And what was at the top? Homosexuals. In Ancient Greece it simply was not a problem. Where did we acquire our very different attitude? During the unenlightened Middle Ages. The first laws against homosexuality were enacted shortly after the Norman Conquest. And later on we developed other great ideas such as child labour, rampant sexism, slavery, and other concepts now discredited as contrary to natural justice.

Flap62, I think we can see here who needs to exert a little self control. I didn't say I don't always look at men lustfully, but I certainly don't exhibit your libidinous attitudes. I don't stand in a shower staring at other guys voyeuristically because that would go beyond the bounds of decency. If someone said they weren't happy showering with me, fine - we'd arrange a compromise. But most people don't have a problem.

Last time I was on exercise I was in a 12-man tent, sharing with a FS, Chf Tech, and 6 officers. None of them - including the 2 USMC officers so "indoctrinated", as you put it, in the ways of institutionalised discrimination against gay men, had an issue even though they know I'm gay. I didn't introduce myself as such (what an awfully rude thing to do!), but someone else had told them, in hushed tones, that they'd be sharing with a "fudge-packer", or one of your other delightful terms. They told him to f**k off and grow up.

Thank God I work with people who defend their friends and colleagues.

[Training Risky]

I find the practices abhorrent but I don't have a problem working with homosexuals - I am not that insecure or vain that I think I will get pounced on in the showers. I'm not even sure if any of the guys and girls I work with are gay - so I am not affected either way.

What I (and I expect many others - gay and straight) have a problem with is the constant parading of UK military homosexuals in Gay Pride, gay magazines and other publicity-grabbing events in order to 'prove' to the nation how much the military has changed since the bad old days.

The MOD should cease to engage in all activities which showcase and show off the minorities in HM Forces. Ex-Lt Cdr Lustig-Preen shouting his mouth off in the papers, regular 'features' on female pilots (wow!:yuk: ) in RAF magazines, the latest MOD initiative to entice muslims into service.... STOP THE LOT! And concentrate on us as one big happy military family.

Why should we bend over backwards to get these minorities (and they are minorities in the UK) into the military, and go to such great lengths to publicise our efforts?

Lets just get on with the job, recruit as many PEOPLE as we can, and not make a big deal of how many gays, women, blacks we have. Lets go about our duties normally and make a really big deal when we get something worthwhile right: Boscastle, peace and security in Irag/Afghanistan... err that's a different thread:O

Points, comments, dissenters and PC flamers greatly welcomed....

[An Teallach]

TR

Couldn't agree more. I recall I was utterly disgusted when I met a fine chap who was at Cranwell with me 6 months after training and he told me that he was leaving as he had better things to do with his life that deal with these racist tw@ts.

That said, I ruffled a few feathers at DORIS when, as a recruiting officer some years later, I refused to have anything to do with the "Ethnic Recruiting Vehicle". Some chimp had kitted out a pantechnicon with images of happy smiling black faces (4 of the photos were of the same guy in different guises - Action Man Diver, Admin Sec Officer, Techie and Hang Glider!).

As is their wont, the MT Drivers immediately christened it the "Wog Wagon". Even this didn't alert DORIS to their rank stupidity.

Did they honestly expect a young recruiting officer to turn up at a school or college, park the ordinary wagon on one side of the playgound, the "Wog Wagon" on the other and then perhaps stand in the middle with a shambok saying:

"OK, all you little white boys and girls to the truck on the left, all you little black boys and girls to the truck on the right!"

Despite being a gay chap myself, it will doubtless come as a relief to fellow ppruners that I have never felt the urge to don a jock strap and fairy wings and prance half-naked through the streets of Manchester.

Were I to be asked to go to such an event I would give exactly the same response as I did when I was asked why I wasn't using the 'Ethnic Recruiting Vehicle'.

[Pilgrim101]

AT

"""""Despite being a gay chap myself, it will doubtless come as a relief to fellow ppruners that I have never felt the urge to don a jock strap and fairy wings and prance half-naked through the streets of Manchester"""""" !!!!!

I'd pay to see that though ! Could you make it Glasgow ? I'll be visiting family there next month !! :p

As for the Race / Gender Industry, I personally believe the antics of the CRE thought police, "activists" like Tatchell and the whole dim pc brigade has put tolerance and understanding of the "normal" silent majority at full stretch.

[Maple 01]

"activists" like Tatchell

Give the man his due, he's taken some risks over his anti- Mugabe protests, I might not agree with everything he stands for but in the case of Peter v Uncle Bob he gets my vote.

In Plato's Republic he set out an ordered list of human relationships based on the idea of forming a social hierarchy. And what was at the top? Homosexuals.

To be fair Tablet, as he was bi himself, and according to some sources only maintained liaisons with his wife to propagate the blood line, he's hardly going to say any different is he?

Read a bit about just how widespread and accepted homosexuality was in ancient times and discovered a bit where the men of (I think) Sparta had to get blind drunk before they could bring themselves to pleasure the ladies - bit like Norwich on Grab-a-granny night
;)

[Scud-U-Like]

I've yet to meet a gay serviceman or woman who is into the whole gay pride scene. Gay pride is generally a bit of harmless fun, but it does have the effect of stereotyping gay men and I do not believe a uniformed military presence, at the hub of such an event, is dignified or appropriate. Unfortunately, we (service personnel who are gay) are taking the flak for the actions of some corporate comms/DORIS type, who thinks they understand (or doesn't care) how most gay people in the armed forces would wish to be portrayed.

On a separate issue, may I ask why some people in this debate feel the need to preface their comments (usually referring to anal sex) with phrases such as, "While I find the thought of gay sex abhorrent....."?

Firstly, such phrases assume the author knows exactly what gay men get up to in the sack. Not all gay men regularly engage in anal sex or find it pleasurable (many, of course, love it): some gay men try anal sex once or a few times and then rarely if ever engage in the practice, and others never try it at all. A researcher from the University of British Columbia (quoted in 5 May, 2005 issue of The Georgia Straight) puts the number of heterosexuals who regularly practice anal sex at between 30% and 50%. So, to stereotype people on the basis of their sexual practices is rather pointless.

As a gay man, there are aspects of vaginal sex (and I have tried it) that I find repulsive, but I do not to feel the need to declare this at every verse end.

[Twonston Pickle]

Straight or Gay, we are all in the military; can we please just get on with the job and not bother with the tedious discussions on this subject? Lets all agree to disagree, respect each other for our abilities, and rise above these (sometimes graphic and distasteful) comments.

[An Teallach]

Pilgrim101 you swine! I have just had to wash a mouthful of tea off my monitor! Behave, laddie - you really wouldn't want to see it.:uhoh:

Scud: I would just like to make it clear before I sign off that I find Gin utterly repellant and though I abhor the sinful liquid itself, I can forgive the sinners who feel the need to drink the tasteless liquor. Fine Islay malt, on the other hand (Leapfrog, Bruichladdich, Lagavulin, Bowmore - I'm not fussy!) ...

Talking of liquor: Dining-in Night -

Camp Steward to Winco: "Liqueurs Sir?"

Winco to Camp Steward: "Not while I'm still breathing you won't!"

Ah the auld yins are the best :p

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Something that forges great pride in my gut of the British Armed Forces is their total lack of racism.

After some years and some reflection and some introspection I find that I am proud of members of the British Armed Forces on this forum showing their total lack of homophobia.

Once upon a time it was alright to make racist comments. We now know that to be contrary to the military ethos. I think homosexuality is the new black.

I make my comments not as a Moderator. Just as a never-quite-was service person who is quietly proud of HM Forces.

Cheers

WWW

[Flatus Veteranus]

Just a few disconnected thoughts:-

I thought the Nature/Nurture debate was settled quite conclusively some years ago by a study (John Hopkins/Kinsey Institute?) of identical twins who had been separated, by force of circumstances, at or soon after birth. Identical twins, of course, share common genetic characteristics; but due to their early separation the samples were nurtured quite differently. The study found a striking correlation in sexual orientation within the twin-sets. Also an uncanny deagree of shared skills, tastes and even career paths.

Anyone who has lived in the country and observed the activities of farm animals in the fields would accept that homosexual activity is the natural choice of a proportion of them.

Those who have been raised in a Christian tradition will know that the only sanctioned sexual activity is that between man and wife. All other activity is sinful, and the letters of St Paul are very specific about homosexuality. Nevertheless, we are all sinners, and who is to judge that some sins are more sinful than others?
Some modern churchmen who have liberal views on Gays put themselves through intellectual contortions to get around this one, but only make themselves sound ridiculous.

Gays who join the armed services and perform their duties well should be respected. But they should not parade their proclivities. The culture of the Services is strongly macho-hetero and this cannot be turned around quickly. Banter about gays is not necessarily homohobic.

We swore allegiance to HM the Queen as our monarch (not C in C). Her secondary duty is Supreme Governor of the C of E, so it would be appropriate for her Services to behave in a broadly Christian way (despite the antics that a seemingly large minority of her churchmen get up to!). I do not believe that the Services need worry too much about snide comments from the Metrosexuals, the Islington pseuds, the Guardianista or the BBC. Values in the shires are more permanent, or at least change very slowly. Ten years ago my rural parish, despite the objections of the then Rector (who was Anglo-Catholic), voted to accept if necessary a lady as his successor as Priest in Charge or as Assistant. Later, they voted against the remarriage of divorced persons in our church save in the most extreme circumstances. I am sure they will not accept a gay priest for many years to come.

[16 blades]

On a separate issue, may I ask why some people in this debate feel the need to preface their comments (usually referring to anal sex) with phrases such as, "While I find the thought of gay sex abhorrent....."?

Maybe it's because we DO. And it's not just anal sex - I find the thought of a man touching another man in ANY sexual way physically sickening, as do most normal blokes. And this is not a 'choice' I make, nor is it a 'bad' or 'outdated' attitude that can be 'cured' with 're-education' - it is an involuntary reaction. Exactly the same, in fact, as a gay man's attraction to members of his own sex. I am sure that gay posters here would be deeply offended if I suggested they could be 'cured' by being 're-educated' or having their 'over-progressive attitude' changed by activists campaining. Get the point?

Sadly the PC brigade have browbeaten most people into silence by crying 'homophobe!' anytime anybody questions the agenda of activists and mouthpieces, hence you never hear the voice of the silent majority.

As I have already said, I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Just get on with your jobs and give the politics a rest, eh? The more you bang on about how 'hard done to' you consider yourselves, the more people like me will find their tolerance being exhausted.

16B

Edited to say: After a bit of research, which has turned up some interesting facts and opinions, I may well have been wrong to use the word 'unnatural' to describe homosexuality (at least without defining explicitly what I understand 'unnatural' to mean). A VERY interesting article (and some responses to the concepts it examines) can be read here (http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/standard.htm). It was published in a conservative-orientated magazine, written by a gay man, and has an obvious right-wing bias. However, I would urge those who consider themselves to be 'liberals' not to be put off by this and give it some attention.

[Roadster280]

Boys and girls,

I must apologise, I have been out on the road for a few days, earning a crust in the post-MOD fashion. It seems my original comments have provoked quite some degree of comment.

I do unreservedly apologise for the offence that I may have caused to those serving homosexuals, particularly those who joined after "Pink Wednesday". I no longer serve, you do. If you do your job, you have my unqualified respect. You are entitled to it. I am a citizien of the UK, you are servants of it.

However, I was there before you were. I wasn't an officer, I left as an SNCO. In the service, we pride ourselves on tradition. Let me give you some examples:

Thank you Sir, pay correct Sir
RN officers' swords
VC winners' names on RAF barrack blocks
Yellow in certain army regiment/corps colours for retreat
No sergeants in the HCav
Pass the port to the left
Matelots saluting with flat palms
Crabs hate Pongos hate Fishheads (and any comination thereof)
Dog called Nigger buried at RAF Scampton.
Nigger as codeword for successful Moehne breach


All three services pride themselves on history (no matter how short ;-)) If it wasn't there, the RN/Army/RAF would not be what it is today. Anyone care to disagree with me?

In the 300 years or so that the UK has had a cohesive military force, the acceptance of homosexuals is but a recent fad in line with the morals of the country.

As I made clear, I have no problem with homosexuals personally, but it isn't going to change the centuries old military ethos anytime soon. Should we exhume and rename Nigger too?

R

[SmilingKnifed]

Many of those exhorting their Richard Littlejohnesque abhorrence at what gay men get up to in the bedroom (or anywhere else) seem to have put a little more thought into what goes on than might be healthy. I can't say I've ever really considered what they physically do as I doesn't have any effect on me.

I can only recall the wave of apathy that ran over me when a good mate (good officer and good pilot to boot) outed himself to us on a night out. He was a mate 5 minutes before and has continued to be so since.

Perhaps people such as Flap62 should question what they'd do were their best mate to suddenly break the same news. Indeed, how would they wish to be treated (as a friend and a professional) were they to be the ones coming out. Not that that'd be you Flaps, you're repeated assertion of your 'red bloodedness' has us all convinced.:ok:

[Training Risky]

Is that you Will Young?

(...Guess I'd better leave right now!...)

Just joshing with you chap! How are you?

[BEagle]

Just after Pink Wednesday, I suggested to the Boss that we ough to put the 'new policy' to the test by waiting until some pompous Very Senior Wheel turned up, then getting someone to stare at a passing airman before announcing "Nice ar$e on that, eh Boss?" in order to see the VSW's reaction.....

It was decided that this might, upon reflection, be perhaps rather too robust a test for the new policy!

Regarding the name of that well-known and long-dead black labrador, once upon a time there was a chap on one of the CFS courses from the Nigerian Air Force. Who had a very, very mischievous sense of humour. On the way down to the squadron after morning met, he was chatting with the sqn boss. As they passed the grave, the Nigeria mate, pretending not to know what it was, asked the boss about it.....

The sqn boss explained about the Dams raid and that the beloved pet of the gallant Wg Cdr had been killed on the eve of the raid.

"Really?" exclaimed the Nigerian mate, "What was his name?"
"Guy Gibson", replied the boss.
"And the dog?" asked the Nigerian, with an air of total innocence.....

Much spluttering and stammering from the boss - until he saw the wicked grin appearing on the Nigerian mate's face!

[An Teallach]

Beags

Another instance of modern PC tosh is people changing the lyric of Leadbelly's mighty song "The Bourgeois Blues".

The song records Leadbelly and the folklorist Alan Lomax and their families' attempts to find a hotel in Washington DC in 1933 when Lomax took Leadbelly up to record his songs for the Library of Congress.

It actually records both their disgust as they could find no hotel (black or white) which would accommodate both their family parties together.

The repellant modern fad is to rip the heart out of the song by changing the line "We don't want no niggers 'round here" to "We don't want no black folks 'round here"! Actually, the word nigger was used by Leadbelly to describe how both he and the (white) Lomax were made to feel.

[BEagle]

Lenny Henry used the same line in a mock 'good ol' boy South state USA' accent in his made-for-TV road movie 'Coast-to-coast' after an hotelier tried to tell him that they had no rooms. But then continued in broadest Brummie "Well, tough $hit - you've got one and you'll have to put up with it!" or words to that effect!

[Pilgrim101]

Ouch

My poor ears are reeling at all the derogatory terminology being used to describe gays, blacks, Pakistanis, WWW Style Welshmen (:} ), Jocks et al. What happened to the old sticks and stones ethos.... ?

Also, has anyone else noticed the insidious shift in Hollywood bad guys from Russians, wild eyed Iranians, Moslem fanatics, Farrakhan caricature goons, Caribbean Yardies, Rastafarians, etc to, wait for it, wait for it, Alan Rickmanesque Englishmen ???? Perhaps the English are the only race who don't take offence and the litigious process against the movie moguls ? :E :zzz:

[An Teallach]

Pilgrim

Being a Scotsman and, like my Cymric cousins in the Service, being accustomed to regularly being accused by my Sassunach brothers in arms of having an unhealthy interest in sheep; being a poofter seemed to me to be a positive step up the sexual social scale!

[Pilgrim101]

AT

As one fluent in Jockinese too, I can identify with those accusations regarding sheep, wellington boots, mountain ledges etc etc. However, being heterosexual (but with dirty habits ! ;) ) I just ignored them and countered with the fact that I only went out with ewes.

Not "youse" you understand, but female shee...... (hole, digging, stop !);) :}

[An Teallach]

Quite, Pilgrim.

Might I suggest a visit here (http://www.jarvieplant.co.uk/plant2.cfm?TypeID=9) during your trip back to Weegieland. Might be more useful than waiting in vain for AT to come prancing down Sauchiehall St :yuk: ...

[The Burning Bush]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the military, or anywhere else for that matter.

What I do have a problem with, is when I am told it should be accepted as normal behavior.

Oh and the continued misuse of the word Gay. Gay means carefree, mirthful, happy etc.......or least it used to:*

[Maple 01]

Aww come on BB, Gay means cheerful? Either you're older than Beags (unlikely) or protesting too much like a few here! Sing if you’re glad to be……..

I'm told on good authority the difference between heterosexual and bi-curious is eight pints.................;)

[Scud-U-Like]

Maybe it's because we DO. And it's not just anal sex - I find the thought of a man touching another man in ANY sexual way physically sickening, as do most normal blokes.

That really wasn't my point, 16 Blades, which is why I bothered to mention that, as a normal homosexual, I find aspects of heterosexual sex pretty toe-curling. The point is, it is taken as read that, if you are heterosexual, you ain't gonna like homosexual sex. So why harp on about it?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"Being a Scotsman and, like my Cymric cousins in the Service, being accustomed to regularly being accused by my Sassunach "brothers in arms of having an unhealthy interest in sheep; being a poofter seemed to me to be a positive step up the sexual social scale!"

No bl@@dy way as I think you will find that "EVERY" hetro sexual man on the planet could produce a believable and credible reason for being caught "in" a sheep but try justifying being caught "in"a bloke................who's going to belive that load of old tosh:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[An Teallach]

ABIW

This I've got to hear! This thread's in danger of getting too heavy anyway.

It's Saturday night and it's curry time, so I'm off. However, I can think of nothing more entertaining than returning @ silly o'clock, full of Rougan Josh, awash with Guinness and Lagavulin, and reading your 'innocent' explanations for being caught in flagrante with Flossie!

[BEagle]

Lamb Rogan Josh - or Lamb Rogering Jock?

It will indeed be interesting to learn from ABiW of a plausible excuse to be caught 'mutton en mouton'.....

Enjoy the Mars Bar samosas!

[16 blades]

as a normal homosexual

An oxymoron if ever I heard one. I'd love to know just what constitutes an 'abnormal' homosexual.....

16B

[ZH875]

I find aspects of heterosexual sex pretty toe-curling So did I until I realised the wife had left her tights on...

[SmilingKnifed]

875, I'm gonna bill you for a new monitor. Replacing the one I just spat tea all over!:ok:

Being of taff persuasion myself, I'll make no comment about 'sheep love', but I was once told that you never want to be caught with a dead girl or a live boy in your bed. A rule I aim to stick to.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Fact: As long as there have been homosexuals, and as long as there have been military forces, there have been (shock, horror) homosexuals in the military.

Fact: I have never had a problem working with gays (of both brands). He/she did not introduce themselves as "hi, I'm xxxx, and by the way I'm GAY!"

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your bedrooms as long as you don't try and force it down my throat (ummm...ahem - well, you know what I mean).

So what's my point?

1. Honest question. Do gays really need to have "Gay Pride" marches and such like to feel better about themselves? We have the Gay Mardi Gra in Sydney, which is almost a family event these days. I honestly think, no - they'd be happy enough just getting on with it like the rest of us.

2. What really winds me up is the higher-ups falling over themselves to be seen to be accepting and tolerant of gays. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's the politicising of the issue which really p!sses me off. ("Oooh, look at us! We're SOOOO tolerant of gays!")

Bex and a lie down in order, I feel.......

[An Teallach]

ABIW

Such a disappointment to a boy!

Wibble!

[SASless]

Now if Sheep could cook! I might consider marriage again.

[Scud-U-Like]

16 Blades. You've got more faces than the Town Hall clock. ;)

Normal homosexual: "An oxymoron if ever I heard one. I'd love to know just what constitutes an 'abnormal' homosexual....."

"I am NOT intolerant or bigoted towards homosexuals"

[Flap62]

Obviously time to let this thread die now as I have been totally won over by the quite brilliant minority tactic of shouting the same thing over and over again and then screaming "racist/homophobe"-(delete as applicable) at anyone who disagrees.

Telling comment on our society that I am branded the pervert and deviant for admitting that I would be tempted to look at members of the opposite sex. It is strange to see phrases such as "libidinous" and "exercise some self control" nowadays - thought they went out of common usage in the 1930's. Also strange that these victorian comments come from members of society who find my "normal" heterosexual behaviour obviously abhorent and yet indulge in sexual behaviour that the majority of the British public find distasteful.

[ORAC]

quite brilliant minority tactic
I think you will find it represents the view of the democratic majority.

I am branded the pervert and deviant for admitting that I would be tempted to look at members of the opposite sex
By whom and where?

these victorian comments come from members of society who find my "normal" heterosexual behaviour obviously abhorrent
Who suggested this?

A few years ago someone posted a paper justifying the exclusion of homosexuals from the US forces. It received much support. Then the poster pointed it out it was a copy of the a paper issued in the 1930s to justify the exclusion of Negroes - he had just replaced the term "black" with "homosexual".

I assure you that if, in 25 years as an officer, I had had the power to get rid of racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots who disgraced their uniforms - they would have outnumbered the number of homosexuals by several factors, and we would have been far better off for it.

[C130 Techie]

I think you will find that "EVERY" hetro sexual man on the planet could produce a believable and credible reason for being caught "in" a sheep

I wonder if the air leckie caught "in" a dog many years ago, thus earning the trade the unenviable label of dogf*****s thought the same!!

[Flap62]

Orac,
Suggest you read the last few posts by tablet and Scud etc. Self obvious.

Agree with you that there is no place for sexists, homophobes etc. If you read all of my posts you will see that as part of an airline crew I work and socialise with homosexual cabin crew. With very few objections I have absolutely no problem working in this environment and find the gay stewards very good at their job. Don't agree with their lifestyle but, hey that's their business.

[Roadster280]

I have realised that the MOD of today is nothing like the one I joined. Fair enough, my mistake, times change. I do accept that homosexuals serve in the forces, and as I have said, I do not object to homosexuals per se, but it was just about the least acceptable form of behaviour for nearly all of my service, and that of countless generations before me.

My parting points:

The point of sex is procreation. Needs a woman and a man to be successful.

The point of Her Majesty's Armed Forces is to implement by force (if necessary) the policies of the government of the day.

The two are not related.

Time to retire from contribution on this subject.

R

[16 blades]

16 Blades. You've got more faces than the Town Hall clock.

Normal homosexual: "An oxymoron if ever I heard one. I'd love to know just what constitutes an 'abnormal' homosexual....."

"I am NOT intolerant or bigoted towards homosexuals"

I am not. I am merely stating my belief that homosexual behaviour is not normal. Such a belief does not lead me to regard homosexuals as a lesser form of life, in any way. I despise homosexuality, but this does not mean I despise homosexuals, because I don't.

16B

[Charlie Luncher]

Little dudes
One question though:
It has gotta hurt, right?:eek: :{ :{ :{ :ugh:
Charlie sends

[Maple 01]

homosexual behaviour is not normal.

According to many studies of group hierarchies within the animal kingdom its quite common and therefore ‘normal’.


And in the words of 'The Bloodhound Gang'


You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals

[incubus]

"Normal" is the catch - the same argument cold say that being male isn't normal in the UK, or wearing spectacles isn't normal. Semantically correct but lacking the nuances :-)

I can't think of an alternative phrase though.

[Langball]

Hear a good joke on the radio this morning.

Two married couples decide to 'spice things up' by swapping partners. After two hours of mad passion, one guys says '****, that was great ............wonder how the two girls are getting on'.

[Hilife]

Knowing that a policy change was inevitable may well explain why the MoD replaced the old style ‘John Wayne’ toilet paper for a much softer brand in the late 80’s.

And to think people accuse the MoD of being uncaring.

[Sloppy Link]

Gay Pride? And the Army/MoD allows its personnel to appear in uniform? If I were to organise a xxxxing pride march for the hetrosexual public, would members of the armed forces be allowed to attend? In uniform? The MoD would have had something to say if a soldier had paraded in uniform with the Countryside Alliance , with the BNP, the Poll Tax demonstrations, the Kop End at Anfield or at the Notting Hill Carnival. The point of my minor rant is I believe the Armed Forces to be a non-political, neutral part of the government elect. This has political correctness written all over it. If a serviceman/woman/convertee wishes to declare his/her/either beliefs/orientations etc, crack on lofty but NOT in Her Majesty's uniform that despite recent knockings, I am still proud to wear. When the occasion is appropriate.

[Scud-U-Like]

Sloppy

I've already mentioned I'm not in favour of uniformed personnel taking part in gay pride, because it may lead to cynical photo ops, like the one we saw the other weekend. I'm not sure, however, there is a valid argument against such participation on political grounds.

All but the most banal deployment of uniformed military personnel is going to be "political" to someone. A republican (or for that matter, any taxpayer) might object to guardsmen being used to convey The Queen's personal luggage to one of Her Majesty's holiday homes. An atheist might object to military personnel attending a church parade at public expense. Almost anyone could take exception to a Tornado flying a display sortie at an arms show. The list is endless. Personally, I wouldn't see any harm in a uniformed presence at Notting Hill. BNP, Poll Tax and Countryside Alliance marches, however, have an overriding political purpose, rather than a celebratory one. I appreciate it is a fine line, but it's a case of like it or lump it, I'm afraid.

[16 blades]

According to many studies of group hierarchies within the animal kingdom its quite common and therefore ‘normal’.

No, according to completely unsubstantiated propaganda put about by gay pressure groups. Many such 'studies' were made by people trying to prove a point, not make impartial observations.

Besides, I wouldn't call less than 5% "quite common".

16B

[Scud-U-Like]

Of course, National Geographic is also part of the evil gay conspiracy for world domination.

National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.

Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.

[16 blades]

Ah yes, the old 'Gay Animals' argument.

Almost all cited examples of alleged 'gay' animals end up referring back to Bruce Bagemihl, author of "Biological Exuberance" - try reading this book, or reviews or a precis of it, and you will see it is pseudo-science at best (a view shared by many biologists who are not fettered by political correctness or a hidden personal agenda). Bagemihl himself is gay, and an activist (so hardly impartial), but most incredibly, his book aims not just to further the cause of the gay rights lobby, but goes on to refute darwinism (almost universally accepted) and attack the importance of heterosexual reproduction! Never mind the fact that ALL living organisms (bar monocellular ones) are the product of a heterosexual act (even 'gay' organisms!). He claims to have documented over 450 examples of animal 'homosexuality' - yet offers no evidence other than his own testimony. He also dismisses alternative explanations - one of which can be read here (http://www.narth.com/docs/ram.html).

Even if animals are, in fact, 'turning queer', this does not mean that this is a 'natural' phenomenon. There is an increasing body of evidence, including experiments that can be reproduced in a lab (as opposed to the possibly biased claims of 1 individual), that the situation is very much man made. See an example here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090904G.shtml), here (http://www.narth.com/docs/toxins.html), and even HERE! (http://www.queerday.com/2005/may/31/gender_bender_chemicals_blamed_for_feminizing_baby_boys.html ) Also worth considering are the possible effects of the sheer volume of oestrogen and similar female hormones that have been, literally, pissed into our water table over the last 40 or so years, since use of the contraceptive pill became widespread - read about it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3882159.stm).

My belief that homosexuality is not a 'natural' phenomenon is NOT based on prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, nor any other label the gay rights lobby would throw at me for challenging their almighty assumptions. It is based on a large body of scientific evidence.

As you so succinctly put it, Scud-U-Like, you can either
like it or lump it, I'm afraid

16B

[ORAC]

Gender is not sexuality. Sexuality is determined during, and shortly after, the 6th week of gestation and is a result of the presence of testosterone as the testes start to develop. This determines the neural pattern laid down, late or low development produces a more female brain. Oestrogen is not a factor, as mammals we gestate surrounded by our mother´s hormones and a high level of oestrogen is always present.

If one accepts that the level of oestrogen in the environment can affect sexuality, one would believe that there should be a clear correlation between the two which varies world-wide as the level varies. I have seen no such evidence. Based on such a hypothesis, one also presumes there should have been a concurrent and equal reduction on the occurence of lesbianism. :hmm:

And there is no point setting up an aunt sally so you can knock it down, perhaps you might be better addressing the article cited by Scud-U-Like?

I did a bit of digging on your references. The result concerning the second, NARTH, is most interesting. They are a fundamentalist Christian group supporting "Reparative therapy" and believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and can be cured, see here (http://jgford.homestead.com/Fordessay.html) a rebuttal of their position by an ex member and here (http://www.covenantnetwork.org/resources&statements/reparative.htm) by the Presbyterians.

I would hesiate to take their word as a scientific source, but even if you did - their position is in direct contradiction to your theory. Which is it to be, lifestyle or pollution? Or is it either as long as it is anti-homosexual?

[tablet_eraser]

I'm awfully sorry, 16B, but I don't see how any of the articles you've shown indicate that homosexuality is unnatural.

Article 1: Truthout
Researchers have also shown that increasing numbers of male western gulls hatched from eggs exposed to DDT attempt to mate with each other.
Doesn't explain why homosexuality existed BEFORE exposure to DDT. DDT is a modern chemical, so how does this explain homosexuality prior to human exposure to such chemicals? You've also made the disingenuous argument of linking human and animal sexuality when there are clear and undeniable differences between the two, especially in terms of reproduction. The male western gulls referred to in this article are more likely to be affected by DDTs because they are born to an avian reproductive system which has more chance of disruption than a mammalian reproductive system. Once an egg is fertilised in a bird, it is on its own; no placenta to remove any nasty chamicals. What goes in the albumen stays in it.

Article 2: New Evidence for Biological Influence on Gender
... then a boy with a brain that had been feminized in utero by an environmental toxin such as atrazine would be at particular risk to establish a weak masculine gender identity and thus to develop homosexual attractions in adulthood.
This is a badly-put argument. Sexuality and masculinity are very distinct. I am NOT effeminate. Masculine gender identity? What the hell is that? Methinks the journalist is not familiar with the differences between sex, gender, and sexuality, and feels he can fudge the three of them to make his point stand. And, again, there is no explanation for how homosexuality can have existed before humans were exposed to environmental toxins.
That earlier study concluded that male homosexuals are about one-third (31%) more likely than heterosexuals to be left-handed, while lesbians are almost twice as likely (91%) to be left-handed as heterosexual women. LaLumiere believes this indicates that homosexuality ... has a neuro-developmental basis tracing back to "disruptive events causing developmental instability" which have modified sexual differentiation of the brain, "perhaps through hormonal or immunological mechanisms." Homosexuality is generally understood to result from a combination of psychological, biological, and social factors. In those homosexuals whose condition had a primarily biological rather than a psycho-social foundation, homosexuality would be, like left-handedness, a "biological developmental error."

He then goes on to list conditions associated with left-handedness. Well, I don't hear anybody claiming that left-handedness is abnormal or even abhorrent. This pseudo-scientific organisation does not note that we stopped trying to "cure" left-handedness in the 1800s because it is impossible.
Additionally, the author has failed to note the growing belief in a genetic case for homosexuality. The later claim of higher pathology among homosexuals does not take into account the fact that the society in which the study took place (USA) has greater social difficulty with accepting homosexuality. In a society where you're constantly told, succintly or overtly, that being gay is evil, I'm hardly surprised that some gay folks develop pathological diffculties. I suspect that Canada, a mere border crossing away, would have a lower rate of pathology. Whose fault? No-one's. Different societies evolve in different ways.

Article 3: BBC News Website, 10 July 2004, Pollution 'changes sex of fish'
I am not a fish. I am a man. This article has nothing to do with sexuality.

You will NOT convince me that my sexuality is an unnatural any more than you will convince me that left-handedness is unnatural. Even the gay-hating NARTH organisation says in its article that it believes homosexuality occurs due to biological and immunological changes. Ergo, it happens - gasp - naturally. And since Plato, Edward II, James I of England, Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing - among other luminaries - were homosexuals BEFORE any of your chemical arguments applied, I do not see how you can prove your case at all.

[Sven Sixtoo]

I been Norman Mailered, Maxwell Taylored.
I been John O’Hara’d, McNamara’d.
I been Rolling Stoned and Beatled till I’m blind.
I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
communist, ’cause I’m left-handed.
That’s the hand they use, well ... never mind!

I am told that the incidence of left-handedness among helicopter pilots is about twice that in the general population.

Are we to believe that helicopter pilots are not normal?

Oops, I think I see a flaw here ...

(takes cover)

:E :E :E

[Pilgrim101]

t_e

Eloquently put ! I see you don't need any help from us "normal" people to articulate your disdain for the chemical/brainwave/social conditioning solution and explanations for any "aberrant" behaviour of any human being. :E

I do confess to being concerned about the amount of Oestrogen being recycled into our water supplies since the introduction of the pill etc but, until I too end up dancing naked down the streets of Manchester (or Glasgow) with a carnation in my mouth then I will have to acknowledge that drinking Laphroaig neat is an acceptable compromise !

[Scud-U-Like]

Laphroaig NEAT! :eek: I suppose you drink it with your left hand too....

[Flap62]

Nature or nurture?

T_e et al, can you explain why homosexuallity is often accompanied by affected camp behaviour? Why do homosexual males often "put on" the manner of speach and hand gestures that have led to parodies in the media etc. Why do many in the gay community on a gay pride march wear the badges of their sexuality (vest tops, tight shorts etc).
I am not saying that all gay people behave like this but having flown in the airline world I have probably spoken to more gay men than the homosexual contributors to this forum. I have also had the "priveledge" of watching the largest gay pride march in the world and can attest to the stereotypical dress sense.
So are you saying that many people who are born gay are also somehow driven to say "oh! look at him" in full Larry Grayson mode by some biological blueprint? Does your genetic makeup also give you a penchant for cut off denims and dodgy caps?

[An Teallach]

Careful, Pilgrim!

I've already coughed that a penchant for fine Islay Malt hasn't "cured" me.

Jings! Maybe it was all those phenolics, peats, seaweeds, smoke and tannins that made me a poofter? If the difference between a straight man and a bi-curious man is 6 pints, maybe 20 years of Islay Malt has made me gay?

Gosh, thanks PPruNe, I'm saved! I'm a chemically adjusted closet heterosexual!

Lay off the Leapfrog right now Pilgrim, lest we end up skipping hand-in-hand down Sauchiehall Street; Jockstraps, fairy wings, carnations and all!

Maybe if I lay off the Lagavulin, nip over to the States and give some preened "Show me the Greenbacks for the Lord!" P.T. Barnum-style preacher $2,000 to tie electrodes to my nuts, I'll come back "normal"!

Halleluja Brother! :ok:

Flaps.

Camp is an affectation some folk feel they have to put on. Camp effeminacy is not necessarily an indication of homosexuality. I have a friend who was orphaned and brought up by 2 maiden Aunts.

He comes across as being as camp as a row of pink fluffy wigwams with glitter balls. He is, however, entirely straight.

[Pilgrim101]

Scud

"""" Laphroaig NEAT! I suppose you drink it with your left hand too.... """""

I have to use both hands ! :} They shake a lot now though !!

AT

I think attaching electrodes to ones nuts would result in a Charles Hawtreyesque type of existence thereafter ?? Talk about stereotyping !

I also believe that the attraction of the theatre/glitzy showbiz, airline cabin crew and all the other effeminate, in your face preening homosexuality industries is the non judgemental acceptance that it is a fact of life and the rest of us are quite happy to see it contained in a nice, pigeon holed box which offers no threat. As a former West of Scotland homophobe I am well qualified to refer to the prejudice which has done so much harm and hurt to so many amazing people and to recant without reservation. What I do in the bedroom and what anyone else does in the bedroom (or some very other interesting public places my girlfriend and I have broken other laws in :E ) is nobody else's business.

The problem is to break down those barriers without alienating those with more "normal" sexual proclivities by slapping them in the face with minority "demands" and activist bull**** like the cruel "outing" campaign indulged in by that wa:mad: r Tatchell and his fascist poof squad. Perhaps the gay community should hire Peter Mandelson to put some spin on their presentation from now on ? :E

[proud2serve]

Hello all, I've read this thread with great interest and finally been moved to join in. This is a long post but hopefully you'll find it interesting.

BAagle: What they do by mutual consent and it's none of anyone else's business. Which is infinitely preferable to the bullying and witchhunting which used to go on before Pink Wednesday came about, in my view. However, wasn't the "Don't ask - don't tell" philosophy of another country's armed forces rather simpler and easier for all to accept?"DA-DT-DH doesn't help anyone. It discourages people from playing their full role in the service community and your personal preferences aside, it prevents the individuals enjoying the company of their partners in the workplace social setting. Like An Teallach says, it means you have to force well adjusted people into the shadows of embittered closeting - and that leaves people open for threats, blackmail and always watching their backs .. not exactly great for teamwork eh.

Leon Jabachjabicz: Marmite drilling is not my bag...that IS my choice. Also as a hetero I have always employed the motto of "Why use the taxiway when the runway is perfectly serviceable?" "Marmite drilling" is quite clearly not just the bag of gay men. I know it is a fantasy / reality for many of my str8 m8s, otherwise
1. They wouldn't keep banging on about wanting to take their girlfriends / wives / casual shags up the catflap
2. There wouldn't be such a roaring trade in straight back door porn - online, print and videos.
Your personal 'preferences' aside that fact remains undisputable.

Flatus Veteranus: It is nonsense to expect servicemen to make a crash change of attitude to appease the PC liberals. A gradual integration would be the best way forward - perhaps with units "manned (?)" exclusively by gays.Segregation of any service personnel into separate units is hardly the route to integration - apartheid of the sexes, races, sexual orientation - hmmm. Haven't we had that before somewhere in the last century? And how are you going to separate out the majority of lesbian/gay personnel who choose to keep their sexuality an extremely private matter in their workplace? Simply put, you are not. Furthermore, if you can somehow manage to get apartheid oops segregation to work in peacetime, how are you going to do it on ops, with personnel for each force package selected from across units as required?

16 blades - I've read your posts with interest. I wholeheartedly agree with your thought that what is important is whether ANY individual serviceman can do his job to the standard that is required - that is what is important in an organisation which works and lives together. However I want to respond to a couple of your points.

16 BLADES 1. I will speak as I feel. I am legally entitled to do so - [It is] my legal right to hold and express those views (Article 12, Human Rights Act ) - so why do you try to dissuade us from doing so?
2. explain why the vast majority who have held these traditional views for so long should be made to throw them out of the window overnight to appease a tiny, but highly vocal, minority?
3. Sex exists because we have a need to reproduce. One cannot reproduce by shoving one's nob up another bloke's arse, to put it bluntly. It is therefore not natural.
4. Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children.
5. A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment.
6. I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Just get on with your jobs and give the politics a rest, eh? The more you bang on about how 'hard done to' you consider yourselves, the more people like me will find their tolerance being exhausted.1. This is an interesting point. I detest censorship same as right-thinking Western liberal. However, I'd be interested for some guidance as to how far the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct governs current service and reserve personnel and their public pronouncements when out of uniform, and online.
2a. Holding "traditional" views for a long time does not necessarily make them right (eg, burning of heretics, persecution of the Jews, not giving women the vote etc).
2b. I am no devil but let's just consider the minority to which you refer in this post. On HM Government's estimate you are talking about 7% of the working population. Some might even put it as high as 10%. This is not tiny - it is anything up to 20 000 currently serving personnel in the regular forces. I agree that there is a group of highly vocal campaigners and they may not be the cup of tea of all my gay co-servicemen, but please try to see past that vocalness to the colleagues and friends that you MUST already know and can relate to. Equating the media image of Gay Pride with all gays is like equating the worst yob on the football terraces conducting section attacks with the mild-mannered father taking his son to a game at his local club.
3. In that case neither is sticking your nob up a woman's arse but that doesn't seem to stop most heteros.
4. ... which is why it is working so well in contemporary society. Are you sure marriage isn't a construct of the church to aid social control and try to prevent STI spreading through sexual promiscuity? That's a whole other discussion.
5. Why isn't it? What evidence do you base this on?
6. I agree we should all get on with doing our jobs, straight or gay, and be judged on that. However, whether your tolerance of people banging on is exhausted or not, the powers that be will continue to *require* you to be tolerant.

Tablet_eraser: Thank God I work with people who defend their friends and colleagues.Me too!. I haven't yet had a colleague, friend or otherwise, tell me how "wrong" everything was or have a go. Well, except for the girls who still think it is such a waste (or maybe it was "what a waist"?).

Training Risky: What I (and I expect many others - gay and straight) have a problem with is the constant parading of UK military homosexuals in Gay Pride, gay magazines and other publicity-grabbing events in order to 'prove' to the nation how much the military has changed since the bad old days.Please don't assume that everyone who is gay and in HM Armed Forces wants to march in uniform in Gay Pride, or even see the recruiters (who are not necessarily gay and simply be on duty) man a float. However, I do believe there is a place for each of the Services to have a presence at events with such a high profile in the gay community at least once, in order to demonstrate that we in the forces are committed to equal opportunities for all and that sexual orientation, like race and gender, are quite simply not an issue. I would be quite surprised if RN, Army and RAF were all to have such high-profile reporting were they to be involved next year again. Of course, that might depend on whether the diversity teams actually asked serving gay (and straight) personnel what *they* thought about it. What about the Royal Marines float though ...

Sloppy Link, "If I were to organise a xxxxing pride march for the hetrosexual public, would members of the armed forces be allowed to attend? In uniform?"As far as I am aware, the appearances by RN, Army and RAF at the various parades have been officially organised and officially sanctioned. They were arranged by the recruitment or diversity policy teams of the respective single services and were not specifically staffed by gay personnel. That was the point of the official armed forces presence - diversity and recruitment. How many people not part of the official team actually turned up on their own, in uniform?

Flatus Veteranus: "Gays who join the armed services and perform their duties well should be respected. But they should not parade their proclivities. The culture of the Services is strongly macho-hetero and this cannot be turned around quickly. Banter about gays is not necessarily homohobic.1. The culture of the Services is by definition macho and long may that continue. Please tell me that you are not for a moment suggesting that is has to be hetero to be macho - you would be doing many of your colleagues an immense disservice.

2. The point about banter is not whether it is intentionally homophobic, it is whether it is perceived by the bantered as being offensive, threatening, unwelcome or [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ist/ [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ic. That's what military regs have to say. I suppose this does affect all of us as we then have to be doubly aware of what we are saying, intended in jest or otherwise.

The burning bush: "Gay means carefree, mirthful, happy etc.......or least it used to"Languages are living and develop as usage changes. We get new words like chav, bling, Bluetooth; old words go out of use and other words develop new meanings like wireless or gay. You are not telling me you would rather be speaking like an Elizabethan actor in Shakespearean English? Thankfully, Nigger these days is just a poor little doggy buried at RAF Scampton - or shall we roll back that linguistic change as well?

Phew, I know that's quite a long post but you guys have all had so much to say and reply to. On a parting note, 16 blades said that the PC brigade have browbeaten most people into silence by crying 'homophobe!' anytime anybody questions the agenda of activists and mouthpieces. I acknowledge there is a risk that ANY debate on any mildly contentious subject can be shouted out. I think this has - largely - been avoided in this thread. Knee-jerk reactions and any attempt to silence - reasoned, balanced, mature - debate aren't helpful to anyone. Fair and frank exchange is. After all, it's all about giving and taking :D

[BEagle]

Maybe if I lay off the Lagavulin, nip over to the States and give some preened "Show me the Greenbacks for the Lord!" P.T. Barnum-style preacher $2,000 ......."

It never ceases to amaze me how such charletans can be permitted to extort such sums from the gullible in a so-called civilised country.

But I did like the movie 'Fletch lives' in which Chevy Chase rips the pi$$ out of not only the Ku Klux Klan, but also predatory god-botherers such as you describe!

[An Teallach]

Pilgrim

Cheers mate. After more internet research, I find that the effect of going through NARTH-type 'therapy' and giving up Lagavulin would be:

1. No more Lagavulin.
2. I would remain gay.
3. I would acquire a SM-style penchant for having electrodes tied to my nuts! :\

As the thought of the whole SM thing has never floated my boat, I think I'll stay the way I am! :ok:

I agree on the Tatchell thing, though like many of the more right-wing chaps (it appears Tatchell is now the darling of the Telegraph set), I had to revise my attitude to the whole 'outing' business after I found that, under the old regime, some of the keenest persecutors of gay chaps in the Service were the closet queens.

Thankfully, now, that is not an issue and no-one should feel the need to point the finger at anyone else's peccadilloes.

Beags

I think we're seeing in Louisiana at the moment quite how thin that veneer of civilization actually is.

For a nation in the grip of an alleged 'revival', I don't see many of the Crystal Cathedral type Multi-Million $ Mammon-Preachers showing or mobilising much Christian charity. God forbid that they should sell off their fleets of limousines to buy food for people in desperate need.

[Re-Heat]

I would happily work with you, and I genuinely don't care what you do with yourself in your own time.
This was a quote from 16B a few pages back - I could only get through the first 4 pages.

The problem with this view is that to be a leader - to care about your staff/troops/men/women whom work for you - you have to care what people do in their own time in order to effectively motivate them to work for you, and in order to help when problems arise that infringe upon the working world as they do for all of us (e.g. childbirth).

I believe the largest change for many of you older chaps is to realise not that it matters that people can do the job - since they will - but rather that people of all creeds must be included socially to happily work together.

If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet.

I don't think it is ever right to know what goes on in one's bedroom however. If you want to know, Google some porn.

[proud2serve]

Re-Heat,Re-Heat said "If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet." I think that pretty much sums things up. You have hit the nail on the head. This is probably the question people should ask themselves alongside the Service test (ie "Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?")
If you can't ask yourself the 'boyfriend' question then I do not think you have a right to make a fair assessment
In assessing whether to take action, Commanding Officers will consider a series of key criteria. This will establish the seriousness of the misconduct and its impact on operational effectiveness and thus the appropriate and proportionate level of sanction.

[BEagle]

A message for bigots (as opposed to those who just indulge in harmless banter):

On 6 Sep 1941, yellow Star of David badges became compulsory for all Jewish citizens in Nazi Germany

On 6 Sep 1966, Hendrick Verwoerd, architect of South Africa's apartheid policy, was assassinated.

It is now 6 Sep 2005. Time for bigots to grow up and shut up - and perhaps for this thread to close?

[PPRuNe Pop]

B.........t..........t........t :ok:

[Scud-U-Like]

Couldn't agree more, Beags. I wasn't in favour of the thread disappearing into the ether, but I think the topic has been exhausted.

[An Teallach]

Tend to agree, Beags. However, many thanks Mods for returning the thread to us, if only for the historical record. When compared to last year's (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142605) effort (Sorry Scud, I was away and only caught the end of it) and the Rum, Sodomy and the Lash (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164233) thread, it is an interesting testament to how an institution can change.

What used to happen was nothing other than institutionalised bullying, and it is obvious that most contributors found that distasteful, no matter which particular group was the target. If I tell you that sadly, the keenest bullies on this particular subject were the senior homosexuals (I speak from experience), you may rightly find it doubly distasteful.

On the apparent subject of the thread, we find that 2 of the openly gay chaps opined that a 'gay pride' event was not an appropriate event for uniformed Service participation, 2 did not express an opinion. Most of the apparently straight contributors did not express an opinion on that issue at all.

It is interesting to note that it was invariably the (apparent) anti's who lowered the tone by introducing the mechanics of particular forms of boudoir gymnastics.

Overall, we find there is far more that unites us than divides us:

We are all the type of folk who largely enjoy(ed) Serving.

We share an enjoyment of good-natured banter.

I find Pilgrim101 and I share an interest in fine Islay malt and the Venerable Beagle and I share a dislike for Salem-style witchhunting and quasi-religious charlatans.

Beags, I cannot offer any opportunity to pursue our shared interest! However, Pilgrim101, if you should ever have occasion to visit the more tasteful of our 2 Lowland cities; If you wish, drop me a PM and I'll take you to the Tasting Room (http://www.smws.com/members/venue-vaults.html) and we can sample the non chill-filtered Cask Strength (120+ proof) variety. Don't worry, dress is comparable to the most relaxed of Officers Messes - our previous sartorial discussions on this thread :uhoh: would not apply!

Finally, I have up to now refrained from responding like for like and I offer this not as a personal attack but as a statement of fact. I find the most telling post from one of the most vocal anti's not on this thread, but here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182815). It seems one contributor's over-weening need to order other people's lives extends from beyond the boudoir to how we should advertise our reunions.

I dare say many of us (gay, straight, black, white or whatever) could agree that all our times in the Service would be (or have been) much happier were it not for that type of person.

[Flap62]

A T

Sorry, if it was bait I'll bite but your statement of "the difference between a straight and a bi-curious man is 6 pints" is either wishful thinking or justification on your part.
Does this mean that you think it's worth trying it on in the later stages of happy hour, after all, by your definition, the bar is full of bi-curious men. Go on, you might get lucky.
Your comment gives an insight into your view of human sexuality. My heterosexual sexuality is a fundamental unshakeable part of me. It would appear that the roots of your homosexuality can be traced back to a few cans of Dry Blackthorn.

[pr00ne]

Flap62,

You really, really REALLY, are a bit of a joke.....................

[Flap62]

*******

Am I to assume that you are one of the "apparently" (A T's word!) people who agrees that everyone is bi-curious? I for one would find this suggestion offensive if it were not so laughable.

I'm sure that our gay brothers would be offended if I suggested " ah it's all right, get a few pints down you and you'll fancy birds again"

[Pilgrim101]

Hmmmm, I might take my chances in Edinburgh with AT in that Whisky treasure trove there though !! ;)

I would take the comment regarding 6 pints in the spirit (?) in which was intended, since most of my oppos (myself too in my younger days) regard downing/quaffing and eventually regurgitating copious amounts of beer as a badge of manhood and better than, or even a prelude to, foreplay :E

I don't think I have ever been "bi-curious" in my life, but I have been pissed enough to regret my choice of female companion the next morning on quite a few occasions ! Luckily I never had to check under the sheets just in case though :}

[Stan Bydike]

My only comment re-iterates some that have been made before in that:

One day, our Lords and Masters said the homosexuality was totally taboo and that was it.

Next day, all is sweetness and light and it doesn't matter what your inclination is.

You cannot change an "ethos" overnight.

BTW Ethos is a word used by senior officers when they cannot rely on the troops being motivated anymore.

[Onan the Clumsy]

One day, our Lords and Masters said that climbing out of a trench into the thick of a machine gun barrage armed only with a rifle was a requirement and that if you thought otherwise, your officers were allowed to shoot you.





[:8]

...and it was eight pints, not six

[/:8]

[16 blades]

Glad to see this back. It would have been sad had it been confined to the politically-correct lead-lined vault!

ORAC
I did a bit of digging on your references. The result concerning the second, NARTH, is most interesting. They are a fundamentalist Christian group supporting "Reparative therapy" and believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and can be cured
Fair hit, NARTH isn't exactly a 'fair and balanced' organisation, however the specific article I linked to contained the most concise precis I could find of the 'environmental pollution' argument. I do not agree with their assertion that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice - however, I remain convinced that many people opt to live the 'gay lifestyle' without actually being gay because it is somehow percieved as 'fashionable' at the moment.

Tablet_Eraser
Doesn't explain why homosexuality existed BEFORE exposure to DDT. DDT is a modern chemical, so how does this explain homosexuality prior to human exposure to such chemicals?
True, Tabs, but environmental pollution has been around alot longer than DDT has. It is now becoming generally accepted that certain types of chemicals can really screw with an animal's endocrine system, particularly during the vulnerable early stages of gestation. One has to admit that there seems to be a correlation between pollution levels over the last 50 years and the apparent explosion in the levels of homosexuality. You may argue that 'the homosexuality was there, it was just never made public because society frowned upon it' - however, that is one almighty assumption that can neither be proven nor disproven. I agree, though, that this model does not adequately explain homosexuality that occurred long before the industrial revolution, but it is an idea that is still in it's infancy.
Sexuality and masculinity are very distinct.
I disagree, as would many biologists - both are VERY heavily influenced by the same hormonal mechanisms. Whilst they may well not be DIRECTLY linked, they are not unrelated.
I am not a fish. I am a man. This article has nothing to do with sexuality.
You've also made the disingenuous argument of linking human and animal sexuality
..then why cite examples of alleged homosexual behaviour in animals to support your position?
And since Plato, Edward II, James I of England, Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing - among other luminaries - were homosexuals BEFORE any of your chemical arguments applied, I do not see how you can prove your case at all.
The short answer is that I cannot prove my case - anymore than you can prove yours. I can merely state my beliefs and provide thought and/or information to back those beliefs up. 'Biological and immunological' changes can also occur artificially - if these are the 'cause' of homosexuality, that doesn't automatically make it 'natural' - that was the point I was trying to make. If the other school of thought is true, that homosexuality has a genetic cause, that too does not automatically make it 'natural', since many things can influence one's genome.

Proud2Serve
I'd be interested for some guidance as to how far the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct governs current service and reserve personnel and their public pronouncements when out of uniform, and online.
It doesn't - your private life is just that, unless it can be shown to affect operational efficiency as per the service test. And postings on an anonymous internet forum fall even further away from that net, since you are not personally identifying yourself.
Holding "traditional" views for a long time does not necessarily make them right
Nor does it automatically make them wrong. Traditional views have generally survived for a long time for a reason.
On HM Government's estimate you are talking about 7% of the working population. Some might even put it as high as 10%. This is not tiny - it is anything up to 20 000 currently serving personnel in the regular forces.
I don't believe this to be true. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that this govt is in the thrall of the 'gay mafia' and actively chases the so-called 'pink vote' - Most of the credible research available puts the figure between 2-6%, so let's take a mean and say 4% - even the almighty 'gay gob****e' Stonewall now puts the figure at around 5% (and even then, they admit that this is largely based on 'assumptions').

Taking this, one can reasonably assume that the Military does not particularly attract gays - for the same reasons that some other professions (cabin crew, for example) seem to attract a significant proportion of gay men. Even if we DID, that works out as something like 3-4000 gay personnel - I have no idea where your 20,000 came from. Given the relative unattractiveness of our job, the reality is probably in the mid-hundreds, if that, bearing in mind we have only just begun to accept openly gay personnel. I would even go out on a limb here and guess that we have less than 200 openly gay personnel currently serving. I challenge you to refute that, with evidence.
"Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children." ... which is why it is working so well in contemporary society. Are you sure marriage isn't a construct of the church to aid social control and try to prevent STI spreading through sexual promiscuity? That's a whole other discussion.
What makes you think a gay 'partnership' would succeed where a marriage has failed? The primary causes of marriage failure are personal failings of the individuals involved - something which ALL people - gay AND normal - are overly prone to nowadays. Surely our entire society is a 'construct of the church', since our laws, customs and morals are based upon (largely) christian beliefs?
"A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment" - Why isn't it? What evidence do you base this on?
By simple virtue of the fact that it contains two adults of the same sex - therefore children are not being influenced by the gender role of half of the worlds population. Children learn by example, and are influenced by their parents more than any other individual. They need the influence of both sexes in this to develop a balanced view of the world around them. How confusing it must be for a child when they have 2 people they call 'Daddy' (or 'Mummy'), despite the fact that only 1 of them can be it's actual parent? I'm not saying it would always automatically be a disaster, but it is certainly far, far removed from the ideal. Human society has managed to survive quite nicely for over 6,000 years (or even longer) with the traditional family unit at it's centre. This is not a coincidence.

Re-Heat
Re-Heat - The problem with this view is that to be a leader - to care about your staff/troops/men/women whom work for you - you have to care what people do in their own time in order to effectively motivate them to work for you
This is, I'm afraid, bollox. You are obviously not a member of the armed forces if you think we run some kind of cuddly-fluffy management style - we don't, and never have. You do as you're told, simple as that - it's why we canachieve what we do achieve. And just to re-iterate - the new code of social conduct explicitlly states that your private life is private, except in extremis. Those who constantly bring their personal problems to work are frowned upon.
If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet.
I, and many, many others, will never ask this question, for two reasons - firstly, I really don't want to know, and secondly, it is none of my business.

16B

[FishHead]

this, one can reasonably assume that the Military does not particularly attract gays
I dont believe you can say this. The reasons for people serving are many and varied - straight and gay. If you take the relatively idealistic view that people do it for the joy of serving 'Queen and country' and defending their way of life, then surely gay and straight would both have the same motivation to serve (leaving aside obvious puns on the 'Queen').

we have less than 200 openly gay personnel currently serving
The number of closeted vs open serving members is not the point. Using your numbers (4%), there are up to half a dozen or more gay folks on every squadron - in or out of the closet. Surely a big enough number to factor in to personnel management decisions? Does having 1 or 2 Muslims/Sikhs/Jews/women in a unit influence decisions?

They [kids] need the influence of both sexes in this to develop a balanced view of the world around them
Single parent families?
"Almost one in four children in England and Wales now lives in a one-parent family, the latest data from the 2001 Census has revealed."
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3006207.stm)

"According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 33% of children adoption from Foster Care is by a single parent "
"Researchers found that comparisons of single-parent homes to two-parent homes showed that children in single-parent families experienced fewer problems. "
"In the same study, research found that single-parent families were more likely than two-parent families to evaluate the adoption's impact as being very positive"
Adoption.com (http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-single-parents.html)

You are obviously not a member of the armed forces if you think we run some kind of cuddly-fluffy management style - we don't, and never have. You do as you're told, simple as that
Wow..... obviously a very different world your unit lives in. I am very surprised that any personnel management system would decide to exclude such a major component of someone's life from consideration. What about all those crash comics articles which talk about stressors? How every BOI looks at the accident crews personal life to see if it could have been a distraction during the mission or mission prep? Having a bloke going through a messy divorce/child custody battle which impacts on mood at work?

I am very glad that I work for people who do actually give a shi* about who I am as a person, rather than just a trained monkey!

[tablet_eraser]

16B

Okay, I think I can make peace with you - your arguments for the causes of sexuality are clearly deeply-rooted, and you can at least put forward arguments in a reasoned and diplomatic way. Flap62, take note.

However:
..then why cite examples of alleged homosexual behaviour in animals to support your position?
Without trawling through the last 9 pages of this thread, I don't remember citing homosexuality in animals as a support for my arguments. In fact, I said that I think human and animal sexuality are too different to be able to link and compare the two.

Re-heat - couldn't agree more. That's what all of this should boil down to. Respect for the individual. The RAF chap interviewed by Attitude magazine had this to say:
It's accepted now that you can't run the military effectively without giving attention to morale and welfare, and respecting people's sexuality is a big part of that.
Common-sense. If you want to get the best from your team, you need to respect their sexuality and relationships unless they run totally contrary to good order and discipline (such as adultery - gay or straight!). Whatever you think, gay personnel are now a part of the Services and if you don't accept that and respect their lifestyle then you're going to be a poor leader. For reference, the overwhelming majority - i.e. all but one - of my colleagues does not have a problem with my sexuality. Don't claim that A T, Scud and I are morale-sapping individuals because experience dictates otherwise.

Management doesn't come into this - it is leadership, pure and simple.

I think this thread has run its course - we're never going to agree, and if it carries on it's going to become more and more tedious. I suggest we have it locked and keep it on the boards for posterity.

[Pilgrim101]

t_e

"""I think this thread has run its course - we're never going to agree, and if it carries on it's going to become more and more tedious. I suggest we have it locked and keep it on the boards for posterity""""


Nice technique to have the last word ?? ;) :E

My last point - Indulgence in "Happy Families" in the service, by definition heterosexual in the main, had/has a far greater impact on individual morale and collective attitude than the private homosexual domain - argumentative or what ? I think the objectors on this thread are quite right that they don't need to be slapped in the face with someone's sexuality as a qualification, or even a mitigating circumstance, in how they operate professionally ( God, it was difficult to avoid saying "performance on the job" there !)

[An Teallach]

16B

You may notice that the gay side of the argument has never preached against the validity of the the other sexual orientation, or their relationships. Personally, I'm very happy that at least one straight couple got together and I'm lucky to have valued relationships with the straight couples in my extended family and circle of friends.

Do I give a tuppenny toot whether birds, bees or educated fleas do it? No I don't.

If Aircraftsman / woman Bloggs were obviously under-performing, might I ask if everything was OK at home? I may well do. I can see no reason why such an interview need go beyond a discussion of human relationships whatever the gender / sexuality of the participants. The chances are the problem will be debt / money / homesickness (serviceperson's or partner's) / health / a problem with a parent or other family member.

Those problems are universal and no different whether the person is gay or straight.

I once returned from detached duty to find a (married) lad had 'come out' in my absence. The casework was well down the line. He had already been told to bring a note from his wife! (I kid you not). I was then ordered by DLS(RAF) to interview the lad to get "more explicit details of his sexual activities"! I asked DLS what the **** for? Were we to fire him only if he had gone beyond 1st, 2nd 3rd or 4th base ?!?

Needless to say, I sat the lad down, told him the purpose of the interview and ordered him to tell me to **** off and mind my own business: An order he was most relieved and happy to comply with. I aksed the lad if he wanted me to drag my heels over this as he could remain on the payroll for months. He replied that he wanted out ASAP as he already had a far better-paid job lined up with BWOS. DLS somehow managed to fire him without any of the 'required' graphic details.

Overall, I am of an older vintage than some of the other gay posters on this thread. Certainly as far as any professional or social interaction were concerned, I dare say the differences between me and youngsters like Tablet will be far greater than the differences between me and thee, 16B. You never know, since on meeting me you would never know I was gay in a month of Sundays, we might have been good friends in the past.

I couldn't give a toss whether anyone approves or disapproves of gay people. All I ask is that you don't fixate on that one (professionally irrelevant) part of our make-up. Look beyond it and you might find some good friends and sound people.

[SASless]

AT.....

Your point is the exact right answer but not in the way you phrased it....if I never guess...suspect....surmise...or know that you are gay....then absolutely spot on....you are free to do your job and serve your country with the straightest of the straight.

The difference is the ones that want to rub it in our faces....poor choice of words....but you understand my meaning. Get on about your life and work....discretely....and everyone is happy....exactly as for a "straight" person. There are some aspects of a person's life I just do not care to know all about thank you. That goes for both straight and gay.

[Flap62]

SASless,
you say,

if I never know that you are gay....then absolutely spot on

What happens then if you do?

[An Teallach]

Good Lord! An insightful, intelligent, pithy contribution from Flap62. :ok: We are making progress.

I think I will wait for SASless' answer to that before responding to his question to me.

[Flap62]

A T

All of my contributions are intelligent and pithy. It's just that you don't realise as your brain has turned to mush on a diet of Will & Grace and Sex in the City.

(Tongue firmly in cheek!)

[An Teallach]

This is too much: Nascent wit as well?

I've already coughed to not being in the first flush of youth. Given previously expressed views, is this a back-door attempt to see if you can finish the old poofter's ticker off? ;)

That said, I complement you on your knowledge of contemporary popular 'gay' culture! I can't abide either programme myself! :E

[SASless]

Flaps62...

If you read what I said....you will have your answer.....same thing as when a guy comes up with porno pics of him and his newest female conquest....I would think rather less of him for telling me all about it.....as in the same feeling I get from Born Agains who just have to remind others they were Back Sliders from their prior beliefs.

Be yourself, be discrete, and be professional...that is all I ask of anyone. Start your preaching...swishing....or barracks talk in a polite or professional conversation or set of circumstances and I think far less of you personally. Bad manners are just bad manners.

[dirtygc]

After 9 pages of 'Gay this' and 'Hetero that' it's time I said my small piece and it's with regards to 'natural'.

Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.

I thank you and goodnight.

[An Teallach]

I think we agree, SASless. At least in part.

As I said earlier, being of an older vintage than the other chaps, aspects of the gay pride thing which they may see as harmless fun, I see as bad manners.

Whereas, I might see somebody baring their backside in a beer-soaked rugby club as harmless fun, I regard someone parading bare-@rsed around a city centre where old ladies may be doing their shopping as extremely bad manners. Likewise, I found graphic references to the mechanics of some forms of boudoir gymnastics made here as being in very bad taste, whereas I found other comments like "They like it up 'em Capt Mainwaring" quite witty.

Actually, I've never been one to be over sensitive or to parade anything. Which is why I found it all the more perplexing that the Service felt the need to spend thousands every year employing sad old closet-queens to 'root-out' gay men and women.

The incident related in my last main post finished me and I was disgusted with myself for having taken part in the dismissal of someone else. I therefore decided to join the fight against the ban at the next available opportunity.

Saying 'yes' at a PV interview 3 months later caused the sky to fall in. The rest is history. Sadly not content with my head, a senior homosexual P&SS rat wanted my friends as well. The only way to stop the queerhunt was to come out to my CO. Even after that, one very senior homosexual was still not content and, according to my CO, wanted further investigations to find more.

Stopping it all was then very easy. I merely offered to co-operate but made it plain that naming of names would start at the very top and work downwards. Official interest in finding junior gay officers then rapidly evaporated.

My point? Good-natured banter is one thing. I think after the recent events in Rwanda, Bosnia and even in Louisiana and the earlier events related by Beags, we should all be able to see how thin the veneer of civilisation in the human animal actually is and how quickly and easily it can disintegrate.

It took only six weeks of radio broadcasts denigrating one group of people as cockroaches to kick off the genocide in Rwanda.

It is extremely easy to denigrate an invisible minority, and especially sad when, to maintain their own invisibility, members of that minority persecute each other.

That, SASless is why it is important that people can be 'out', honest and open. Otherwise, the road from hate-filled posts on a message board, to queerhunts and sackings, through beatings, on past imprisonment and right on down the road to hanging (http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=37) teenage laddies can be a very short road indeed.

[JTIDS]

As long as people fly, fight and follow orders does it matter who or what they are? I think not. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to belong to the wrong generation by about three or four levels.

One of the great joys about living in the UK is that you can be of any political belief, race, gender, or sexual orientation and it shouldn't matter a damn.

Those of us in the armed forces, in the extreme, are there to protect these freedoms. Those of you who appear to believe that gays shouldn't be in the armed forces, or that the change has destroyed ethos look at certain non-aillied nations with more conservative views and see if you'd prefer to live your lifes like them.

[ihoharv]

Well in a much earlier forum I’ve given my thoughts on the subject but in précis form “here we go again..”

Grateful, firstly, for keeping this forum discussion open, and all contributors for keeping the discussion on track and not too fire brandish, either way.

An Teallach – I share the exact experience as yourself with the closeted RAF P&SS investigators! Was reacquainted with one of these strange folks that had been assigned to “investigate” me in a gay bar in Oxford (Jolly Farmers) several years after expulsion. Deep cover – no doubt…sure thing...

The guy that turned me in was a self-loathing closeted guy – a grounded Nav/Air Trafficer who was universally recognized as, and later revealed to be, a big ol’ [married] woofter. Subsequently I went through close to a year of absolute living hell, that I would not wish on my worst enemy. I found out who my friends were pretty quickly...

This was the mid-80's. During my time I'd say that about 2 or 3% of the service is/was predominately homosexual. No more (forget this 5 or 10% nonsense) but absolutely no less.

So where to go from here? I'm actually somewhat embarassed - as a direct result of the above I chose to give up my country for somewhere else, and I have to say I feel OK about that. But I sense that younger service members feel a little more open minded around sexuality issues - just a sign of maturity I guess...

Shame on the homophobes, though, and the 'Adam & Steve' nonsence...this teenage hyperbole will catch up with you just as you least expect it...

[proud2serve]

Did I say 20 000 gays in the British armed forces? Yes. It has been suggested in previous posts that gay people will be both LESS likely to join the military because of the Previous legal regime (http://www.proud2serve.net/lifestyle/theroadtoequality.htm) or MORE likely to join because of their attraction to the service lifestyle. The uncertainty over this leads to extremely significant statistical margins of error in measurement. So I don’t believe that it is wide of the mark to say that, out of approx 200 000 regular uniformed personnel, 20 000 would identify themselves (at least privately) as gay. From personal experience, I have worked in one unit where the proportion was in excess of 15% (that we knew about).

I REALLY didn't want to get into the numbers game ... it gets a bit tedious because, depending on backgrounds, people will cite figures from 1% to 10%
- what is the agreed definition of gay/homosexual?
- there is no definitive survey that everyone can agree on
- most importantly, it's getting rather off topic ... so, if you want to read into this yourself then have a look at
* How many gay people are there in Britain (National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles - National Centre for Social Research) http://www.avert.org/hsexu1.htm
* Facts and figures about society and the military - http://www.proud2serve.net/lifestyle/facts.htm
* Americans Believe One In Five Is Gay Poll Shows - http://www.gaytoz.com/bResearch.asp#gallup
And please feel free to let me know of any other important sources we should be aware of.

Also, how do you want to deal with the significant number of bisexuals or people who dabble occasionally? The simplest way to look at sexuality is as a spectrum - one reason we shouldn't put people into labelled boxes in an effort to make them feel included or excluded. Some guys only like girls, some guys only like guys, and in between there are many shades of preference. However the most important thing is that people define there own sexuality and if they want to call themselves gay, bisexual, straight or whatever then that is their own business. Expecting people NOT to talk about their private lives at work is simply ridiculous – about as possible as not talking about football and other sports or how much we drank last night and how sore our heads are. Just because we don't "agree" or "approve" why should we blot out particular colours just because it doesn't float our airship?

[16 blades]

The simplest way to look at sexuality is as a spectrum

I think it is unwise to quote the now almost universally discredited research and theories of Alfred Kinsey - the man who did most of the early research into homosexuality and who's findings, whilst seized upon by the gay community fiercely, have been found to be inherently flawed, even fraudulent. It is from his early works, such as Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948), that the oft trotted-out 10% figures, and the so-called 'spectrum' of sexuality, are derived, and where most modern social thought on homosexuality comes from. Read this (http://www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/kinseyunsanitized.pdf), which provides another side to the Kinsey story. Not everything is always as it seems. Of particular concern was his apparent embracing of paedophiles in the name of his research, which if true, is surely cause for disowning the man, his institue and all his so-called research.

Tablet_Eraser, thank you for your kind words re: making peace. I am glad that, whilst we will obviously never agree, that I have had the chance to debate with a gay man that will not immediately denounce me as a raging homophobe!

As for the 'gay animals' argument, it appears I have wrongly attributed those comments to you (somebody DID bring it up, but I can't remember who) so please accept my apologies. I hope that one day we can continue the discussion over a beer! I'll buy you one as long as you promise not to buy me 6! :E

16B

[ORAC]

You seem to have a penchant for and extraordinary belief in the pronouncements of fundamentalist Christian organisations. Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp). Might I suggest they have an agenda?

"We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. We help people focus on six core issues, which we have determined need Biblical principles most and where we can have the greatest impact. At its root, each of these issues is a battle over worldviews.....

1. Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.
------------------------------------------------
Kinsey Institute (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/Movie-facts.html). Read their comments. I know who I would rather believe. If you want to keep quoting and espousing the views of these fundamentalist groups, at least be open about it and don't claim it's independent unbiased scientific research.

[Hilife]

I would argue that the military - principally the army - is perceived as one of the last bastions of male masculinity, and homosexuals - particularly the Gay Pride brigade - are seen as feminine and therefore not conducive to mainstream male military culture.

It was always my understanding that the US Military regretted relaxing the rules on homosexuality to a "don't ask, don't tell," policy, and this change came about not as a result of human rights compliance or at the request of senior military ranks, but at the insistence of Bill Clinton.

Like many minority groups, homosexuals ask that they be treated as equals in society, yet surely the hierarchical concept of the Armed Forces is based on an unquestioning submission to authority and is therefore contrary to the very principles of equality other than of equal rank.

I would imagine that life in the Armed Forces for an ‘outed homosexual’ could be pretty lonely, not to mention a little dangerous at times, so why go out of your way to recruit at ‘Gay Pride’ marches?

[tablet_eraser]

Hilife, a reasoned argument, but not the case. Yes, we submit to a command chain, but as Britons, all equal before the law and, dare I say, before God, we have the right to be treated equally as people. That is separate to the command chain. And life as an "outed" homosexual is anything but lonely. I'm treated exactly the same as anyone else at work, and get on with all of my colleagues (or as many as anyone else would get on with!).

16B - Pah! A mere 6 pints? [Cue standard chest-beating drink boasts]...

[An Teallach]

And still they come, like moths to a flame.

Hilife: If I were you, I wouldn’t go anywhere near today’s Armed Forces with an attitude like that. For one thing, ‘gay’ and ‘effeminate’ are not synonymous. Far more importantly: There are many highly capable female officers and SNCOs who would be giving you orders, and to whom you would be required to submit. They would make mincemeat of you intellectually and, I dare say, some of them could make mincemeat of you physically as well!

You’ll find 2 of the gay contributors object to Service participation in ‘pride’ events. Both (I think) for reasons of taste and decorum, but also, going back to my “Ethnic Recruiting” days, because if I as a gay chap could find my way to the AFCO like my straight colleagues, then so should other gay chaps be able to. From my knowledge of the gay community I also think the kind of gay chaps (Shock Horror: We’re not all the same) that will be attracted to a Service career are not the ones cavorting through Manchester in jockstraps and fairy wings.

16B: Surely it shouldn’t matter a damn whether there are 50%, 10%, 4% or only one gay person on the whole strength of the RAF. If he or she is any good at his / her job, should he / she be fired?

Trying to discredit Kinsey because he studied paedophiles is as fatuous as discrediting the work of criminologists who study serial killers. Presumably you wouldn’t feel that because someone studied a serial killer, they condoned mass murder?

I’m afraid after 10 pages, I’m at a loss as to what you’re trying to achieve here, 16B? Do you want me and the others to convert? Do you think gay people should not exist? Do you think I am a chemically altered closet heterosexual?

Go on, do us a favour, just put up a bulleted list of what you are trying to achieve and please, no more links to f’tang f’tang biscuit-barrel wing-ding American God-botherers. They are rather boring.

I only ask because I really would like to think that you have some purpose in mind other than fulfilling a need to protest your red-blooded heterosexuality to the PPRuNe community at large. I just can’t see what it is yet.

Both Ihoharv and I fell victim to the ladies that doth protest too much and I sincerely hope you’re not one of them.

[Maple 01]

There are many highly capable female officers and SNCOs who would be giving you orders, and to whom you would be required to submit.

I wish!

[An Teallach]

Good one, Maple!

I must say I found hilife's notion of "submission" to masculine authority in the military community interesting to say the least. :hmm:

[Maple 01]

slightly homoerotic perhaps? Perhaps there's something hilife would care to share with the class? ;)

[An Teallach]

When I saw his monicker, the first thought that came in to my head was a Scots sit-com of the same name about 2 gay trolley-dollies who may well have dreamed of being taken in hand by a ruffty-tuffty soldier!

[opso]

...I also think the kind of gay chaps (Shock Horror: We’re not all the same) that will be attracted to a Service career are not the ones cavorting through Manchester in jockstraps and fairy wings. And that is my main concern with the attendence at the Gay Pride event. It was nothing more than a political stunt to show how inclusive the military is and would have achieved little in the way of recruiting people - given how stretched the military is, why are we wasting time and resources?

Despite all the pseudo-science rambling on the un/natural debate from both sides, I'm utterly unmoved and apathetic about the debate. However, I do find myself believing one of 16blades beliefs. I suspect (ie I have no proof either way) that there is lower pecentage of homosexuals withhin the military than there is within society as a whole. My basis being that we (the military) are not good at projecting the perception that we are an environment suitable for minority groups to work in. As a result, we have fewer women, afro-caribbeans, asians, non-christians etc than in British society. I would be genuinely surprised if the image we project doesn't effect homosexuals (another minority group) in the same way and so adversely effect the number of applicants.

An Teallach / tablet_eraser and any other homosexual (ex)military folks: did you consider your sexuality when deciding on joining the military? (I'll be interested to see if the generational difference effects the answer).

As a heterosexual joining 20 years ago, it never occured to me to question whether my sexuality would be compatible with my chosen career, but I know it would have done at that time had I been homosexual. If the question did/does get asked, some homosexuals would have been/will be be put off joining and therefore the percentage inside will be lower than in the wider society, even if the question is no longer asked and therefore the percentage of homosexual new recruits is the same as the percentage of homosexuals in society.

[ORAC]

Like many minority groups, homosexuals ask that they be treated as equals in society, yet surely the hierarchical concept of the Armed Forces is based on an unquestioning submission to authority and is therefore contrary to the very principles of equality other than of equal rank.

Exactly.

I can put black, women, young, old, gay, Irish or anything else you want in that sentence. If you the only principle is equal rank, then no other attribute matters.

[An Teallach]

Opso

An Teallach / tablet_eraser and any other homosexual (ex)military folks: did you consider your sexuality when deciding on joining the military? (I'll be interested to see if the generational difference effects the answer).

No, not really. I joined the military at 18 and, being a scaley-brat, I had grown up in the military.

I may well have questioned my sexuality by that point, but certainly not in terms of my choice of career. Many men question their sexuality, not all end up gay. Probably one of the straightest of the straight that I have ever met (and an ex-Para to boot) has said publicly that he once wondered: one Billy Connolly. He like most of the straightest of the straight, couldn't give a flying goat's fart if I (or anyone else) is gay.

As I said earlier, it only really became an issue for me when I had to be party to firing someone else. I was also made project officer for the appalling HPAT Survey at the same time which caused those 'in the know' in the Mess great hilarity. And the ranters talk about having it shoved down your throat?!

BTW If anyone's wondering what kind of sad life AT leads that he can spend 2 concurrent Saturday afternoons PPRuNing (I can't believe this is still running:rolleyes: ): The only thing I hate more in life than a closet-queen with a noose in his hand, is AT with a gloss paintbrush in his hand!

This is the 2nd coat and interspersing painting and ppruning is a great way of getting through it.:ugh:

Roll on curry and pub time! :ok:

[16 blades]

1. Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

Please tell me what is 'fundamentalist' (or even untrue) about this statement, or the organisation as a whole.

Please tell me what is 'fundamentalist' about beliefs that take the christian view of life (the beliefs that forms the basis for western society, its laws and customs). Perhaps it was their use of the word "Bible" that you found so disturbing.

If you want others to accept you, you must accept that there are some who have difficulty with this - so instead of demanding this and that, how about trying to meet people halfway? Tolerance is a two-way street.

Most organisations like the one above are simply trying to defend a set of values that they believe in, values that some activist organisations seek to destroy.

quoting and espousing the views of these fundamentalist groups
no more links to f’tang f’tang biscuit-barrel wing-ding American God-botherers. They are rather boring.
Yes, how dare I post a link to something that offers an alternative point of view. Since you seem to have a problem with people whos values are based on genuine, deep-rooted and honest beliefs, I will offer this (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Flynn20041117.shtml) link instead, which appears to have nothing to do with christian 'fundamentalism'. An extract:

Instances of Alfred Kinsey’s untruthfulness are numerous and consequential. Kinsey actually paid a friend $500 to pretend to be his Institute for Sex Research’s statistician. He cultivated a Norman Rockwell public image while behaving more like Larry Flynt behind closed doors. The Indiana University professor gullibly took pedophiles at their word that their child-victims enjoyed sex, interpreting “violent cries,” “loss of color,” “an abundance of tears,” and “sobbing” as symptoms of sexual climax for infants and young children.

Kinsey erased blacks, and almost wholly ignored senior citizens and devoutly religious people from his survey data. Prison inmates, on the other hand, constituted about twenty to twenty-five percent of those interviewed for 1948’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. If a political pollster were to use such methodology, he would be laughed out of a job. For a sex researcher to employ such sampling techniques is far worse, particularly when one considers two admissions from the Kinsey team.

First, Kinsey admitted that including interviews with inmates would skew the conclusions of a sample group. In effect, he invalidated his entire report on male sexuality in a passage in 1953’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Explaining why he disregarded data collected from incarcerated women for his second volume, Kinsey confessed that they “differ as a group from the histories of the females who have not become involved with the law.” How so? Kinsey surmised, for instance, that between half and three-fourths of male inmates engaged in homosexual acts. Including inmate data for the female volume, he admitted, would have “seriously distorted the calculations of the total sample.” But not only did he rely on inmate data for the male volume that he later admitted would have “seriously distorted” his female survey, but this data constituted a massive portion of his interviews for Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

Second, Kinsey targeted a specific type of inmate—the sex offender—in his prison interviews. All three of Kinsey’s coauthors later confirmed this. Wardell Pomeroy, portrayed on the silver-screen by Chris O’Donnell, admitted: “We went to the [prison] records and got lists of the inmates who were in for various kinds of sex offenses. If the list was short for some offenses—as in incest for example—we took the history of everybody on it. If it was a long list, as for statutory rape, we might take the history of every fifth or tenth man.”

And this is the man who's values and 'research' you espouse? You say that CWA have an agenda - do you not think that Kinsey had his OWN agenda?
I know who I would rather believe
So do I, ORAC, so do I.

An Teallach,
If he or she is any good at his / her job, should he / she be fired?
No, they should not. One can also add to this "If they obey the rules as written" - when you served, the rules as written stated that you could NOT. You lied, either to gain entry or to continue serving. Whether the rule isteslf was unjust or not is immaterial - you broke it which made your integrity questionable and as such you had no right to continue in the Service. Your dismissal was, therefore, right and proper. Now that the rules have changed, that no longer applies.

You asked me what my point was - I thought I had made that obvious, but just for you here is the 'list' you requested:

1. I do not believe homosexuality is 'natural'. There is evidence that sexuality is influenced by external factors during early development, and does not occur in the natural course of things.

2. Most, if not all, the current thoughts and teachings on homosexuality stem from Alfred Kinsey's research. This research has been shown to be flawed and even fraudulent. Kinsey himself was a sadomasochistic homosexual (or bisexual) who, in my opinion (and that of many others) was simply seeking ways to justify his own sexual proclivities. He may also have been a paedophile (one of his research team has claimed this, but no corroboration of this has been obtained). This, however, does not seem to have stopped the gay community pronouncing his findings as 'gospel'.

3. I do not believe that sexual orientation should be a bar to Service, any more than gender or race should. The overriding principle, however, must always be the Operational Effectiveness of the Service. We were perfectly effective BEFORE openly gay personnel were allowed to serve, so their inclusion has added nothing to the Service overall - to claim otherwise is nonesense. It has benefitted the gay community though.

4. As I have already stated, I have NO problem working with a professional and competent serviceman who happens to be gay. What gets my goat is when gay people try to 'promote' themselves or their cause, or claim that they are somehow indispensible to the Service or society as a whole, particularly when dodgy research or blatant falsehoods are used to this end. For me, homosexuality only becomes an issue when somebody makes an issue out of it (by insisting on uniformed attendance at Gay Pride parades, for example).

16B

[An Teallach]

Pished and awash with Kathmandu Masala, Guinness and Lagavulin as I may be, at silly o'clock on a Sunday morning: I rest my case M'Lud.

[ORAC]

Please tell me what is 'fundamentalist' (or even untrue) about this statement, or the organisation as a whole.

Oh, because of things like this..

The Concerned Women of America announced at a press conference Saturday their launching of a campaign for the equal representation of evolutionism and creationism in the classroom. "Both creationism and evolutionism are assumptions. Both require a certain amount of faith. Both should be represented" said Dawn Wipperman, Communications Coordinator of the CWA for the Greater Los Angeles area.

and this.
Secular Humanism faces a New Attack (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/new_attack.htm)

Secular humanist should be aware of a new book recently published that unfairly castigates millions of Americans who are unbelievers. Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium, by Tim LaHaye and David Noebel, issues a call to arms for evangelical Christians to battle against secular humanism. LaHaye is co-author of a series of eight Left Behind tribulation novels, best-sellers today: some 23 million copies of these books are in print (see Edmund Cohen's review in the Spring 2001 Free Inquiry). LaHaye is founder of the fundamentalist Creationist Institute and the conservative Heritage Foundation. His wife, Beverly LaHaye, heads Concerned Women of America.......

Fourth, LaHaye and Noebel issue marching orders to evangelical Christians (80 million strong) urging them to gear up for an all-out battle to root secular humanists out of public life; their bottom line is that "No humanist is fit to hold office." They urge that only fundamentalists be elected to office, that conservative judges be appointed, and that funding for the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Education, and other "humanist' agencies be cut.

That's why I call them fundamentalist. :rolleyes:

[Hilife]

An Teallach

I gave ten excellent years of service to the military and if called upon to serve again, I’m quite confident that I would integrate just fine.

Regarding your rant about my attitudes and my point about the military being perceived as one of the last bastions of male masculinity, I did refer specifically to the Army and the following serves to support my view;

• About 90% of British Army personnel are male.
• ⅓ of Army careers are not currently open to woman.

The above is not meant to demean woman in any way and as 90% of all new jobs created in the last 35 years have gone to woman, I would be on a sticky wicket if I argued any other case. I am outnumbered three to one by woman in my home so I know my place only too well.

Also I am at a loss to identify where you observed even the slightest inference to female intellect and more specifically the lack of it, I can only assume that you are looking for the female vote in support of your stance?

Just so you know where I stand, I personally don’t agree in same sex marriage, same sex adoption and I didn’t have a problem with homosexuals being excluded from the Armed Forces when I served under the old regime, but surely that does not make me a homophobe. Much as I sensed the glint in your eye, I’m sorry to disappoint you Maple.

Like a lot of people on this thread, I don’t give a damn what you get up to in your private life and I don’t dislike you just because you are homosexual. I too love Guinness, malt whisky’s and a curry, but the point I tried to make was that I failed to see any benefit for the military in attempting to recruit at Gay Pride Marches, and on this point I see that we have similar views. It just goes to show we do have something in common.

Maybe I spent too long in Germany, but I have always believed that decisions should be made for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the minority.

[Maple 01]

Maybe I spent too long in Germany, but I have always believed that decisions should be made for the benefit of the majority at the expense of the minority.

Is someone singing 'Tomorrow belongs to me!' in the background?

Much as I sensed the glint in your eye, I’m sorry to disappoint you Maple.

Ah well, perhaps after another few pints? ;)

I'm quite old so indulge me for a moment,

When 'they' armed the girls we thought the sky would fall in - it didn't

When 'they' detached the girls to the less glamorous/more hazardous places we thought the of 'work hard - play hard' camaraderie would disappear under a cloud of pink, tears and cuddly toys - all that happened was a softening of the macho rugby-club atmosphere - which frankly gave my liver a rest

Then the big one, when it was OK to be gay - well, we really thought the world was coming to an end! Conveniently ignoring the facts that the Spartans had done OK as a military formation and that there had been homosexuals and bi-sexuals serving for years – many of us (myself included) came up with reasons why it would never work – based on stereotypes – you’ll get some idea when I say that I thought John Innman and Quintin Crisp were the standard male ‘poofs’ and that all ‘homos’ were like that.
Lesbians? All diesel dykes with man hating agendas.

Turns out we were talking crap – after the initial fanfare and a few closet doors creaking open life went on as ‘normal’. I even managed to ditch most of my prejudices actually talking to friends who turned out to be gay – or at least relatively cheerful. Still the same people, haven’t sprouted two heads. See the person not the label (see, I was awake during ‘Equality and Diversity’)

Moral of the story? What is ‘normal’ and acceptable in society is constantly changing (unmarried mothers .co-habitation, not covering the legs on the mess piano etc). The Armed Forces either move with the times to reflect society or becomes frozen in some Victorian moral timewarp like a fly in amber (cliché alert) if it chooses to do that it stagnates and fails to attract recruits of the right calibre and takes a kicking next time it's fighting Johnny foreigner

[An Teallach]

Maple 01

friends who turned out to be gay – or at least relatively cheerful

Classic - right up there with ZH875's wife's tights.

Oh, damn, well ... you know what I mean :}

Cx your PMs

[tablet_eraser]

16B
Your third point is where you should rest - that's what this entire debate hinges on. You accept the validity of allowing gay personnel to serve without fear of dismissal. However, I disagree that this adds nothing to the Service - it adds the possibility of recruiting more high-quality personnel who might have been scared off before.

AT
Lagavulin after masala? What are you thinking??? Personally I'd rather just stick my tongue in wood ash than drink Lagavulin, I imagine the taste would be fairly similar... (looking wistfully at my well-drained bottle of Lagavulin).

Now, Laphroaig and Bruichladdich... THOSE are great Islay malts. mmmm...... :\

[An Teallach]

Oh you silly boy! I thought we'd finally put this thread to bed. That's 2 poofters with a penchant for Islay malt. 16B is probably scouring the net as we speak for a 'scientific' explanation :ugh:

Awaiting incoming umpteen links to Yankee god-botherer evils of alcohol / deviants sites :{

[proud2serve]

Gentlemen,

I thought we'd finally put this thread to bed. That's 2 poofters with a penchant for Islay malt. 16B is probably scouring the net as we speak for a 'scientific' explanation
I abhor any attempt to associate me with the consumption of Islay malt which is an ABOMINATION, against nature and quite clearly not what nature intended. Its very existence is simply a corruption of what has been held to be true and upright in society. Nay, it flies in the face of TRADITION.

Scientific fact, backed up by good fundemental taste, has it that in the making of Whiskey malted barley is dried in closed ovens. The barley never comes in contact with smoke, so the true malted barley flavor shines through with no smokiness. And just don't get me started on the triple-distilled-twice-distilled-the-departing-Monks-got-it-all-wrong debate.

(It is believed that distilling techniques have were brought to Scotland by monks traveling from Ireland. The well known monk who helped introducing Christianity in Scotland is St. Columba. He landed on Iona, a small island just off the coast of the Isle of Mull).

I will simply not be associated with this portrayal of forces gays as Islay drinkers. The facts are black (Bush) and caucasian. Never let it be said that I don't fancy a spot of Bush now and again. Put that in your Bacardi and coke.

[BEagle]

The scientific explanation is probably simply that because neither of you are likely to be prolific brat-breeders, you probably have the disposable income to try the odd drop of malt on a more regular basis than those besotted with rugrats.....

Which is entirely understandable.

But tonguing wood ash...? I'll leave that particular recreation to you to enjoy, if you have no objection.

Now I'll probably be on the receiving end of some bible-bashing, god-bothering fundamentalist claptrap - but for rather different reasons. Anyway, if Big G is so all-knowing, one question:

Why the wasp?

I mean, just what was he/she thinking of that fine day up in Heaven when he/she suddenly thought "Hmm, haven't created much today. Just a few rodents and the odd bird or two... Wait a moment! I know - I'll create an infuriating, useless and totally irrelevant creature with which to annoy Man. I shall call it the wasp!"

And lo! It came to pass.....

Thanks a whole bunch, God.

[An Teallach]

Partial to a spot of Bush myself, P2S, though I prefer mine green and malty. I can see whisk(e)y sales plummeting in messes up and down the country as closet queens switch to a more 'manly' drink; Malibu and pineapple perhaps?

Reminds me of the great Not the Nine o'clock News sketch where Billy Connolly walks in to a bar:

BC: Has Jimmy the Hatchet McGregor been in?

Barman: No.

BC: Has Angus the Hammer McDonald been in?

Barman: No.

BC: Has Ronnie the Razor McFarlane been in?

Barman: No.

BC (with camp lisp): Och well, I'll have a Campari & Soda then please!

Beags old chap, the Great Architect probably just did it on Sunday with a hangover, same day as he thought up the midges with which to plague his own country.

[tablet_eraser]

Forget wasps, midges, even bloody crane flies (utterly, totally pointless, they don't even eat anything). What was He thinking when He created the duck-billed platypus?

"Ho hum. Those spiders are going to scare a few men-thingies [chuckles]. Now, what do I have left? Some beaks... avian reproductive systems... otter bodies... and some poisonous claws. I have a great idea...!"

Not forgetting, He also chose to inflict us with such delights as dyslexia, insomnia, indecision, and Trinny and Suzannah.

Definition of a dyslexic agnostic insomniac: one who lies awake at night, pondering the existence of dog.

Okay, strayed from the point somewhat...!

[Pilgrim101]

Brilliant diversionary tactics there ! So far the thread has moved on to Whisky distillation and entomology. Although there is still hope for AT if, as he says, he really IS partial to a spot of Bush !!! :p :p

[An Teallach]

You find me a malty one, matey - and I'll give it a damned good seeing to! Anyway, nobody said orientations are necessarily fixed for life in all cases. Jings! At one time, I used to like Gin! :yuk:

[BEagle]

Would that have been, errr....pink gin?

Sorry! :D

[An Teallach]

Oh My God Beagle! You are a heartless old sod!! Have I not exposed enough of my innermost self on this thread for you?

Yes, you've sussed me, you perceptive swine. But you just wouldn't let it lie; you have to rip into the darkest depths of my soul.

I was happy for AT to be a beer-swilling, whisky drinking, curry-eating, gay, Scots ex-crab officer. I suppose I set myself up, even this lady didst protest too much, the moth flew too close to the flame. :{

OK, if you insist. Yes AT did drink pink gin. Are you happy now? :{ Worse than that, I drank pints of Pimms at Sanders. :{ :{

You've ripped it from me :{ :{ :{ I was a Rupert before I was a Crab. They made me do it! :{ :{

Oh, the shame. How can I show my face at the Malt Whisky Society again? I'll even have to change my PPRune Handle!

Are you happy now? Are you? Are You?

;)

[BEagle]

Right! That's you outed!





.....as a one-time 'Harry Pinkers' tippler!

Pint of Pimms on a hot summer's day? Why not? When I was first in the RAF we used the following blend to make 3 x half-pint glasses:

7 fl oz Pimms No.1
2 fl oz Export strength gin
10 fl oz Lemonade
11 fl oz Ginger Ale

= 3 x half-pints

Plus ice, mint and all the usual bits of fruit.

[An Teallach]

No!

Stop it ! Stop it! :{ :{

I can't look. The ignominy ... The shame! :{ :{

[engineer(retard)]

Pink gin drinker, does this mean you'll be changing your name to Auntie Alec now :\

Regards

Retard

[An Teallach]

No! No! It's worse that that! They'll call me a ....




:oh: Sassunnach!! :oh: and an :uhoh: ex-Pongo :uhoh:

I'll be drummed out of the Pipe Band, I'll never get in to The Vaults again, I'll be called a White Settler, I'll be cashiered from RAFA!

Help me boys! What'll I do? Where will I go?

Does anyone know a good plastic surgeon?

When's the next plane to Venezuela?

[tablet_eraser]

AT
Sorry to say it, but in these circumstances there seems to be only one appropriate response...

... drama queen! ;)

[timex]

Sorry to say it, but in these circumstances there seems to be only one appropriate response...


... drama queen!


Sorry but that is priceless...........

[An Teallach]

Yes, quite.

Let's just say that if there were to be a PPRuNe amateur dramatics society and it were to be staging "American Beauty". There would be no shortage of very convincing actors to play Col. Frank Fitts USMC!

did I fail the audition?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

No AT dearie, but in American Beauty who did Frank Fit?:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[DeBurcs]

"Only poofs root women..."

[FishHead]

Related to the discussion (before the liquor got involved at least)

Gay servicemen and women who enter into civil partnerships are to be entitled to married quarters on military bases.The so-called "gay marriages" will become legal on December 5 this year following the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act.Homosexual service personnel are then expected to take advantage of their new rights.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said gay personnel in civil partnerships would be treated in the same way as married troops in terms of entitlements to allowances and benefits.

He said: "The Civil Partnerships Act comes into force in December 2005 and will apply to the armed forces.

"Consequently we will be extending the same entitlements, allowances and benefits to same-sex couples who choose to register a civil partnership recognised in law that are granted to married couples."

Unmarried heterosexual couples and gay couples who have not registered a partnership will continue to be ineligible for married quarters.

Homosexuality was made legal in the armed forces only four years ago.

Yahoo link (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12092005/140/army-give-gay-soldiers-married-status.html)