Gay recruitment drive by RAF

[JessTheDog]

As seen on ARRSE:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/31/ngay31.xml

Air Force enlists Stonewall for gay recruits
Sunday Telegraph

The Royal Air Force has called in a gay pressure group to help solve its recruitment crisis. The Service will take advice from Stonewall on how to make itself more attractive to homosexual and bisexual men and women,and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the "pink" media.

As part of the initiative, the RAF will pay Stonewall an undisclosed sum to join its "Diversity Champions" programme, under which commanders have to demonstrate the Service's commitment to implementing a range of policies to promote "lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) equality in the workplace". The measures will include offering equal survivor pensions to same-sex couples, creating an LGB staff group and sponsoring events such as the annual Gay Pride festival.

The "contract" between the RAF and Stonewall follows 18 months of negotiations in which senior military chiefs were told that the Armed Forces were a "turn-off" to gay men and women because of the belief that they were "entrenched with gay prejudice".

Many of the estimated 12,000 homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stonewall, few if any serving gay troops feel confident enough to declare their sexuality publicly.

As part of the new undertaking, the RAF has agreed to be placed on a Workplace Equality Index, which showcases Britain's top 100 employers for homosexual and bisexual staff. Stonewall will offer RAF personnel the chance to attend its intensive two-day professional development training exercise for "rising- lesbian and gay professionals in the workplace".

Senior RAF officers will also receive a training package "designed to educate employers and their staff about the benefits of building an inclusive workplace environment for lesbian and gay staff".


A commentator wrote:

The changing of the name RAF Brize Norton to RAF Graham Norton will bring with it some changes to the way the Royal Air Force is perceived by the public.

:D

[FJJP]

I am so glad that I'm out.

What's the betting that £hundreds of thousands will be diverted from op budgets to be spent on courses for all service personnel on:

'lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) equality in the workplace' and

'rising - lesbian and gay professionals in the workplace'.

It will, of course, be compulsory and it won't be long before gays are fast tracked to prove that the RAF is, indeed, championing the cause [whatever that is] at the same time sweeping away any recruiting problems.

Equality for all?

[splitbrain]

I am so glad that I'm out.

Er, Freudian slip? ;) :E

[JessTheDog]

I "came out"* 2 years ago...on PVR! I am sure that the problems of overstretch and low morale will easily outweigh any small gains made in targeted recruitment. The Army are losing people quicker than they can replace them, despite a high-profile recruitment campaign.
* a joke. Am I a bigot if I point out it is a joke? I am married. But I liked Brokeback Mountain. Just the outdoors bits. Honest!

[Ken Scott]

Clearly their Lordships don't have enough real issues to concern themselves with - inadequate numbers of mostly outdated aircraft, poor retention of personnel fed up with endless detachments to the desert, lack of spares etc. If there are as many homosexuals in the forces as quoted (12000 - presumeably worked out using the standard perceived 6% of the population) then we already have our 'quota'. Targeting the gay community to boost recruitment will not solve the manning problem, as they will still be affected by all the same issues as affect everyone in the military. Gay or straight, people are fed up with the same things, namely inadequate resources, excessive tasking, & the poor leadership that contributes to that situation.

I'd rather see the money spent on the things we need, not on PC window-dressing, & I reckon that most of the non-heterosexual members of the armed forces would agree with me. I can't believe they would want to be fast-tracked in their careers on the basis of their sexuality alone.

[BEagle]

Remember when:

LGB meant Laser Guided Bomb
EO meant Electro Optics
PC meant Personal Computer

[Lucy Lastic]

Remember when:

.....

PC meant Personal Computer

In my day it meant Police Constable

[FJJP]

Just another example of how the language of this country has been twisted into different meanings. I appreciate that you know that I meant that 'I'm out of the Services', but in my informative years, for example, a 'gay' man was someone with an amusing and spirited character; life and soul of the party; always had a crowd round him at happy hour. And straight as a die.

Terminology hijacked by minority groups. PC brigade having you watch every single thing you say.

Freedom of speech? I'm Scottish, and I cannot call my brother 'Jock' or take the p*ss or tell an anti-Scottish joke...

[Vage Rot]

More Lesbians!!! Excellent!!:D :ok: :p

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

VR,

Lesbian is good, in fact bl@@dy marvellous but I think from a purely male perspective Bi Sexual girls is a much better option:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Axel-Flo]

I always thought PC was supposed to be pre-fixed by R...certainly from an RN perspective.

Oh and wasn't LGB an infamous or otherwise previous encumbant of the title "Red 10"....?:cool:

[zedder]

"More Lesbians!!! Excellent!!"

Well VR, I suspect you certainly don't need to worry about your quota from the G and B fraternity over there on Pansy's Own!! ;)

[Rick Storm]

I rest my case..............

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sb5pF0IF_DM

[PompeySailor]

These threads are great. The ex-RN bigots on Rum Ration are a joy to behold, with quotes ranging from "shoot the pooftahs" to "it wasn't like it in my day". Rum Ration also being the place where the entire board was groomed by a paedophile for 6 months before outing himself!

Don't forget, the only difference between gay and straight is 8 pints of Fosters....and the bit about "only if you push back" is not true...

[An Teallach]

Oh well, no surprise that the pink wing of NuLabour should be getting MoD payback for its part in assisting against the fight for real equality, so as to promote and maintain a ghetto.

The RAF will now have to sign up to place pointless recruitment advertisements in the ghetto 'gay press', a press largely ignored by a great majority of gay people in the country, and targetted at a section of the 'gay community' who are highly unlikely to be considering a military career.

Those of us who actually engaged in the fight for equality are as horrified by this kind of patronising bolleaux as many of our straight brothers in arms. Strangely, we all managed to find our way to the recruiting office and many of us managed to serve rather well until we were booted out. We campaigned against the type of special treatment we received then; ideally wanting just to be left to get on with our jobs. We certainly did not campaign for one type of special treatment to be replaced by another.

Stonewall will offer RAF personnel the chance to attend its intensive two-day professional development training exercise for "rising- lesbian and gay professionals in the workplace"

The mind boggles!

Anyway - another corker from ARRSE:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/uploads/forums/careersforqueers.jpg

[Lima Juliet]

I guess we have to replace the loss of shirt-lifters after the closure of Colt..."If I was a Jag Mate...Ooh, Ah!...etc"

:ok:

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

a 'gay' man was someone with an amusing and spirited character; life and soul of the party; always had a crowd round him at happy hour. And straight as a die.Oh right. Like any straight bloke would have an amusing and spirited character; be the life and soul of the party; or ever have a crowd round him at happy hour.

http://www.earlydoors.info/general/images/series1/gen3.jpg

[Two's in]

I see Mess rules have already been amended to make offering to push somebody's stool in a promotable offence.

[cyclic gal]

a tenuous PC link here but sadly it appears to be where we are going.

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress,non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all ...
and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the United Kingdom great, (not to imply that the UK is necessarily greater than any other country or is the only "UK" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
- DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTABILITY -
(By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.)

[jwcook]

I'm looking forward to the call 'chocks away Ginger' ringing out once more from RAF bases?.

or listening in to the fighter jocks " this is Mountbatten pink 1, calling Fuchsia 2, you are cleared to scratch his eyes out..".

Hmm.. which set of Queens regulations do they have to follow?.

Joking aside, It doesn't matter, gay straight or lesbian as long as they are good at their job..

We all have our preferences ;-) mine... to be dipped in chocolate and thrown to the lesbians..:ooh:

Happy New year to all..

[Vage Rot]

"More Lesbians!!! Excellent!!"
Well VR, I suspect you certainly don't need to worry about your quota from the G and B fraternity over there on Pansy's Own!! ;)

It's just not the same since you left darling!!:O

[Antique Driver]

And how much is this gay recruitment drive going to cost the MOD??

Probably enough for individual sets of body armour for all AT crews, ESF for all transport aircraft and an updated DAS for all!!!

We don't need to be targetting individual groups in society - the truth is no-one actually wants a career in a dwindling military raped by New Labour. The reason we are so short is that we are sick and tired of being reduced and over-stretched with insufficient funding or equipment.

I have served alongside homosexuals in various theatres and they don't ask to be treated any differently - why should we have to fund a gay recruitment drive??

What next? - a Yorkshire recruitment programme??

PC and EO spin - they can stick it up their arse!!!;)

[BEagle]

I imagine that the homosexual community are equally annoyed at this ludicrous positive discrimination...... A desperate attempt to augment the recruiting deficit; a finger in the crumbling dyke (sorry).

As others have said, surely the real reason for recruitment difficulty is the self-induced implosion of the UK's armed forces this century? Overstretched, underfunded - and anyone who dared to raise his/her head above the parapet with the slightest criticism or complaint was jumped on mercilessly by the inadequately testiculated 'middle managers'.....

Or rather, 'muddle mis-managers'?

Just what has been achieved over the last 10 years? Anyone can list a dozen or more things which have destroyed service quality of life - but what has actually been improved? Anything at all?



OK - perhaps one thing. Recognition of military flying skills and experience by the CAA which has made transition to a second career in civil flying much easier.

[dodgysootie]

Anyone can list a dozen or more things which have destroyed service quality of life - but what has actually been improved? Anything at all?

Unfortunately The PVR rate has, and is continuing to "improve"!

[dallas]

Totally agree Antique, although I think there is some merit in returning to tried and tested recruitment grounds, such as the Northeast, (read: working class areas) traditionally being good areas.

But we do seem to waste an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to recruit minorities - the ethnic minority recruitment teams are a prime example of disproportionate effort to results. A couple of asian servicepeople I knew were regularly poached from their primary duties to attend all expenses paid, high-profile events across the country, but where are the asian recruits? (and yes, you could argue that's the point!)

By targetting homosexuals I think the policy people have, as usual, missed the point - people aren't choosing other careers because they're gay, they're not bothering with the military because it has a growing reputation for being undermanned and underfunded.

Perhaps we should devote more time and effort to recruiting people who like travelling a lot, who don't get offended by paying tax while pissing in a hole in the ground somewhere crap, who can see the funny side when their tax revenues go to scroungers while their equipment pre-dates them or simply doesn't work.

Just not sure how you'd market it...

[Tim McLelland]

I'm able to speak from both sides of the proverbial fence on this one, being both actively involved in a major RAF PR project at the moment, and also being a gay man.
It's probably fair to say that 99 percent of us "queers" (as quaintly described by our beloved Army brethren on Arrse) also think it's vaguely ridiculous to be diverting MoD money to Stonewall for no obvious reason. Clearly, it won't result in so much as one additional recruit but it will put a bit more money in Stonewall's pocket so that they can continue their heroic campaign of achieving er... nothing. Unfortunately, Stonewall has long lost most of its credibility with us fags and it is now seen as a political group which spends more time in bed with Tony than Cherie does.
Naturally, anyone with an ounce of common sense agrees that the RAF wants the best people for the job, be they gay, lesbian, bisexual, green, yellow, whatever. It's going to take much more than Stonewall's claptrap to change attitudes within the RAF so that any potential recruit feels comfortable at the prospect of announcing his sexuality to his work mates. The sad aspect of this saga is that it really shouldn't be an issue. A gay man has no interest in the sleeping arrangements of straight men therefore it seems ludicrous that the converse shouldn't apply.
In reality, it's pointless to make any effort to change people's attitudes. People's attitudes cannot be "made" to change; they inevitably change gradually thanks to the influence of society as a whole, personal experience, age and wisdom. Sooner or later we'll reach a stage where anyone can join the RAF's ranks and be happy to tell anyone that he's gay without raising so much as an eyebrow. We're already getting there but Stonewall's involvement won't make anything happen any faster.
I fear that this latest MoD crusade is just another hair-brained attempt at plugging an ever-widening hole in a proverbial dyke (if you'll pardon the expression). I've sat in plenty of crew rooms and listened to all kinds of banter, much of which has contained all manner of "gay" comments. But I have to say that I've never heard anything which I found offensive and one gets the impression that the whole "gay thing" is already something which is rapidly becoming an issue which is of no more interest than the colour of one's skin.
Ultimately, this latest nonsense probably has more to do witha desire to be seen to be competing on a level playing field with the Navy. The Navy went off to do their "let's get gay-friendly" thing and one presumes that the RAF simply want to do likewise, rather than be at risk of missing the political boat. Whilst any attempt to out-grow institutionalised homophobia has to be applauded, it's difficult not to conclude that this latest move is unnecessary, pointless, and probably another major waste of money.

[Antique Driver]

Dallas - I was only joking about the Yorkshire recruitment drive!!!

Being born and bred from God's own county myself!!

[The Swinging Monkey]

This farcical announcement will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to recruiting at all. It is yet another nail in the coffin of a dying RAF that is slowly being eaten alive by the maggots at the MOD. Time is running out fast for the RAF, and unless action is taken soon, it will be gone forever.

If the CAS is reading this then may I make this plea....

Glenn, for Christs sake wake up and put a stop to all this kind nonesence NOW. If you or the MOD have money to waste, then 'waste' it on those that are under your command now, and need it urgently, not on a tiny few who may be under your command in the future.
The boys and girls need flying suits, socks, boots - the essentials Sir! They cannot get them because stores don't have any! Put the money towards the AT fleet to help them out or some other needy outfit; SAR maybe?? Spend it on the front line, they are the ones that need it NOW, please. Here is a real opportunity for you to make a name for yourself in history. Not just as the CAS but as the man who told the government that 'enough is enough' and it has to stop. You are the CAS, NOT some 20 yr old spotty civil serpent. You should decide what is happening, NOT them

Come on Sir, this is the chance of a lifetime to make a real difference. Dont throw it away.

Kind regards
TSM

[Pontius Navigator]

Last year I saw on my local website a link to LGB Training.

"That's handy I thought, I need to know more about the EPW III. Unfortunately it was the wrong link. :(

[TheWizard]

I think the recruiting campaign started years ago!!
http://home.clara.net/acf/scale/scale-pics-4/low/pink-spit/spit-1.jpg:}

[An Teallach]

I must confess to being intrigued as to what happens at LGB training sessions.

As a card-carrying poofter (to whom it all seemed to come fairly naturally), were I to rejoin, would I be able to skip the lesbianism syllabus or would I have to sit bored to tears through that to get my diploma? Does one get a diploma?

Is there a syllabus anywhere that I can check? Is the Bisexual Training session just the elementary Lesbianism and homosexuality sessions chucked together with intermediate heterosexuality?

Does the advanced syllabus in all 3 disciplines include any heavyweight 'slap and tickle'? I've never been averse to a bit of tickle but I draw the line at anything involving pain. Can one opt out of nipple-clamps and piercings and still get one's diploma?

Is there an exam? Is it a practical, viva-voce, written or multiple choice?
Can anyone enlighten me?

[BEagle]

Perhaps it's an oral exam?

Sorry - just banter!

This must be the biggest pink jet the RAF ever had:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/PinkPig.jpg

But there was once, of course, a hideous brown Nimrod!

[An Teallach]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/img/logo.gif

1 Jan 07

Air Force enlists Stanedyke for Scots recruits



The Royal Air Force has called in a Scots pressure group to help solve its recruitment crisis. The Service will take advice from Stanedyke on how to make itself more attractive to Scots and Multi-national men and women, and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the "tartan" media.

As part of the initiative, the RAF will pay Stanedyke an undisclosed sum to join its "Diversity Champions" programme, under which commanders have to demonstrate the Service's commitment to implementing a range of policies to promote "Scots and Bi-national (S&B) equality in the workplace". The measures will include offering Whisky rations to Scots couples, creating an S&B staff group and sponsoring events such as the annual Scots and Bi-National Pride festival, featuring the world-famous RAF Regiment Synchronised Bagpiping Morris Dancers.

The "contract" between the RAF and Stanedyke follows 18 months of negotiations in which senior military chiefs were told that the Armed Forces were a "turn-off" to Scots men and women because of the belief that they were "entrenched with anti-Scots and bi-national prejudice". A trawl of websites such as PPRuNe reveals deep-seated prejudice with frequent use of derogatory terms such as Sweaty-Sock and Porridge-Wog.

Many of the estimated 35,000 Scots personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stanedyke, few if any serving Scots troops feel confident enough to declare their nationality publicly.

As part of the new undertaking, the RAF has agreed to be placed on a Workplace Equality Index, which showcases Britain's top 100 employers for Scots and bi-national staff. Stanedyke will offer RAF personnel the chance to attend its intensive two-day Whisky appreciation exercise for "rising Scots & Bi-National professionals in the workplace".

Senior RAF officers will also receive a training package "designed to educate employers and their staff about the benefits of building an inclusive workplace environment for Scots & Bi-National staff".

Scottishness was taboo in the Armed Forces until 1746, when the Government was required by its need for an empire to lift the Armed Forces' ban on Tartan.

An Teallach, Stanedyke's chief executive, described the decision by the RAF to join forces with his group as "marvellous". He said: "After decades of entrenched [anti-Scots] prejudice across the Services, it would have been almost miraculous to imagine that the day the ban was lifted in 1746 everything would be hunky dory.

"I can punt out courses on Burns and Bagpipes and laugh all the way to the bank. Would you recommend the Seychelles for a holiday? There’s one born every minute in the NuLabour Public Sector."

Gerald Howarth, the shadow Tory defence minister with responsibility for the RAF, said that he thought that "taxpayers would be aghast" that public money was being used to support a pressure group. "This is an extraordinary exercise in political correctness," he said. "The idea that the Scots & Bi-National community is not already aware of the opportunities in the Armed Forces is ridiculous, and to go out and specifically recruit on the grounds of a person's nationality seems to defeat the whole purpose of anti-discrimination legislation."

A spokesman for the MoD said: "The Armed Forces are committed to establishing a culture and climate where those who choose to disclose their National orientation can do so without risk of abuse or intimidation. This is a far more PC use of the Defence Vote than body armour or explosive suppression in our aircraft. Anyway, we pished millions up the wall on lawyers fighting the Scots and we now have to use the Bigotry Budget for something. Rather than lose it back to the Treasury, we’ve renamed it the Patronizing Budget."

[SASless]

Can we expect a whole new re-write of RAF slang in light of the new program under discussion?

[NutLoose]

I can see it now..........

"Join The Navy and Feel A Man" ( We have lots of them for you )

"Are you Male 16 and over with Transexual Tendancies? Well Join the Army" (You haven't tried on webbing till you try on ours)




I suppose the ideal applicant for the forces these days is a, Disabled, Gay, Ethnic Minority Illegal Immigrant with strong Pacifist tendancies............... as that should just about tick all of the PC boxes...

[allan907]

More Lesbians!!! Excellent!!

Lesbian is good, in fact bl@@dy marvellous


Be careful - you might just get what you wish for :}


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/allan907/butchlesbian.jpg

[threepointonefour]

... more time in bed with Tony than Cherie does.

I KNEW IT !!!!


BTW Tim, well made points throughout.

[threepointonefour]

SASless:

The phrase, used when clipping the edge of the tanker basket, "Rim, no damage" took on a whole different meaning a few years ago.

Also, the annual report phrase, "he has a good pair of hands" also ceased to be used.

[TacLan]

Will that make "just nipping out for a Fag" a thing of the past, the future, or fall into the category of "Don't ask, don't tell" :}
Dallas has got it right, target the areas of high unemployment which have always been the richest recruiting ground for the RAF. The specific notion of the North East is a little off the mark though. There is next to no RAF footprint in the north east. It lies just about halfway between RAF Scotland and RAF Lincs/south. If you are on Tyneside and see an aircraft, 9 times out of ten, it'll be Queazy Jet or some such. Very few machines with roundels seen in these parts.

[Tim McLelland]

Somewhere, deep inside their dark minds, the MoD must know that the fundamental cause of recruitment problems has nothing to do with attracting gays, ethnics or anyone else. The fundamental shift for all three services has been caused by the sudden realisation that joining HM Forces is now no longer a mere career opportunity. Joining-up now runs a very considerable risk of being required to fight and put one's life at risk. Consequently, all the traditional attrractions like decent pay, job security and career advancement don't seen quite so appealing.

Ultimately there's not much the MoD can do to shy away from this fact. Tinkering with recruitment campaigns is fine but it's not going to create a change of attitude. Indeed it's difficult to think of any obvious means of attracting people back through the Careers Office doors.

[BEagle]

True enough, Tim.

By the way, great post, An T! :ok:

[Vage Rot]

At least, once the non-hetrosexual cadre is promoted to positions of power, everyone would have a chance to sleep with the boss to further ones own career - it wouldn't be limited to the ladies!!

[I_c_oldpeople]

I remember a time when personnel who wanted "out" quickly considered pulling the gay card out.

Soon it will be an option for faster promotion.

Changed days:ugh:

[SASless]

Three,

Just promise me the traditional call for a game of Uckers will not change!

[Tim McLelland]

At least, once the non-hetrosexual cadre is promoted to positions of power, everyone would have a chance to sleep with the boss to further ones own career - it wouldn't be limited to the ladies!!

Actually, you probably wouldn't be surprised to know that this kind of thing has always happened between guys as much as it does between men and women - it's just that it doesn't get talked-about as much. It's not as if there aren't already lots (and I do mean lots!) of gay men in the RAF - it's just that lots of them choose not to announce the fact (chiefly because many of them aren't entirely convinced that the "banter" doesn't mask an underlying resentment in some cases), and lots of others simply identify themselves as being "straight" even though they've spent just as much time in bed with blokes as they have with women. I think we've already reached a stage where I seriously doubt if anyone would actually choose not to join the RAF because he/she might happen to be gay. Surely, the only question now would be whether to be open about the fact, or simply say nothing. Consequently, I just don't see how the new MoD initiative is going to result in so much as one additional person joining the ranks. What a waste of money!:rolleyes:

[SaddamsLoveChild]

The only reason for it is because retention and recruiting are in such a state. I dont care what a persons, gender, proclivity, religion or race is/are; all I want is someone able bodied with integrity who can do the job they are employed to do and is prepared when the chips are down to go that little bit further. If CAS wants to sit at a dinner party with other service chiefs and say that we too are jumping on the band wagon then thats up to him; I would say he has been poorly advised and is wasting money that is needed elsewhere. MOD giving moneyto Stonewall - the mind boggles and I think it does Homosexuals a diservice - the people we want are intelligent enough to make the decision themselves.

I'm with the swinging monkey - CAS, Sir put the money where we need it supporting the front line or into infrastructure, God knows we need it.:ok:

[Yeller_Gait]

Many of the estimated 35,000 Scots personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stanedyke, few if any serving Scots troops feel confident enough to declare their nationality publicly.


What a load of a£$e!

I do not know of any fellow Scots who do not feel able to declare their nationality, and I am sure the Welsh and Irish are the same.

Without going into numbers, I would also say that if there are 35,000 Scots in the Armed Forces, that figure is well above the average, so why the need to give large amounts of money to stanedyke?


Y_G

[An Teallach]

Irony will just be a ferrous adjective to you then, yeller-gait. :\

[Ken Scott]

Y-G. Check your 'humour identification' software, you might find that whole post was none too serious! The idea of a Scotsman keeping quiet about his nationality....!

[Almost_done]

An T

Wonderful post btw, but, fact can be stranger than fiction, you may be onto something there. :}

[An Teallach]

Having just finished watching Brig. Mel Jamieson's quite excellent last Tattoo on the telly, I fear my bid for Stanedyke's bit of the 'equality industry' pie may well be bu88ered. Although, if we wait until Gay Gordon takes over, I may just be able to sell the Scots as a downtrodden military minority.
I recall dancing lessons for young Scots officers always used to transit to mess rugby, the signal being when someone tried to swing Mel into the ante-room fire, he being CoS at Crazyhall at the time. Happy days!

[Billy Whiz]

I served nearly 13 years in the RAF and never once met a single homosexual or anyone I thought might be one. It is absolute rubbish to say there are 12,000 homosexuals in the armed forces - a fantasy created by sexually messed-up people to justify their own position. Homosexual practices were universally shunned and no male I met felt comfortable around them. As an airline pilot I now work daily with homosexuals, and indeed can go for days at a time before I meet a hetrosexual cabin crew member. I have never once been rude to them and would never dream of doing so. Many of these guys are nice blokes who are kind, thoughtful and considerate. Nonetheless, I am unashamedly of the view that homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong.

I would not have felt comfortable on a fast jet squadron around, for example, two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private. During the Gulf War I spent night and day for 3 months with the same bloke who I shared everything from flying missions into Iraq, meals, showers, letters home, laughter and sadness. I simply could not have done that had he been a homosexual. Many men do not like homosexuality and are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. What has been wrong for thousands of years has not suddenly become right. That, folks, is normality whatever our politically correct Lords and masters may wish to tell us.

If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country then you surround them people who they are at one with. However much Stonewall and other pro-gay organisations may be upset by this, ordinary blokes do not want to be sharing intimate moments with homosexuals - they never have and never will. By insisting you have homosexuals everywhere, you will destroy the fabric of the fighting community and the time you will find that out is when you most need that fabric to be in place.

[Tourist]

Billy.

Sorry, you've left me confused. I'm not very good at reading between the lines.

Are you for or against homosexuality in the armed forces?

[An Teallach]

Tourist

I don't think you're the one that's confused. This must be a record for PPRuNE: We got through 50 posts on a gay topic before our first lady who doth protest too much reared her ugly head.

Do us all a favour, Billy: Keep your shower fantasies and 'intimate moments' to yourself! :}

[Tim McLelland]

Well done Billy - that must rate as one of the most hilarious postings I've ever seen on Pprune!
First-off, I have to ask how on earth you know that you served for 13 years in the RAF and never met a homosexual? Apart from the fact that this would (by anybody's judsgement) be utterly impossible, I wonder how you expected to identify us homos? Were badges required?
As for homosexual practises being universally shunned, I fear that this universaily applied only to the darker regions of your confused brain. Like any other aspect of life there were (and of course are) lots of gay men in the RAF and I'm sure they were happily doing whatever they did back then, regardless of your rather blinkered assumptions to the contrary.
There's only one point in your comments that I could possibly agree with, and that's the number of serving men who are (or at least identify themselves as) homosexual. It probably is much, much lower than 12,000. Looking at your comments, you don't need much intelligence to work-out why.
Equally comical is your nonsense about sharing your life for three months with another bloke in the Gulf. I'm not quite sure what difference you imagine sharing it with a homo would entail (and of course this assumes that your friend wasn't a homo - I imagine he wouldn't have been falling over himself to tell you if he was, judging by your attitude). What exactly do you imagine in your over-active mind? Would he have been applying make-up? Would he have tried to cop a feel once the lights went out (dream on!) or were you worried he might wake up wearing sequins?
I agree that many (well, I guess "some" would be more accurate) men are repulsed by the thought of sexual acts with another man. Conversely, lots of gay men are equally repulsed at the thought of relations with a person of the opposite sex. You see, that's what "gay" means; it's not about tv-esque Julian Clary figures or some bizarre sexual act which probably only takes place in your imagination. It's simply a person who happens to be attracted to a person of the same sex. That's it - nothing more exciting and scary than that. Everything else is purely a symptom of your tv, media and religion-fuelled imagination, sir.
As for your definitions of what might be determined to be "wrong", I guess this depends on your religious beliefs, if you happen to have any. But even if you have you're on thin ice. Without starting to quote chapters from Matthew and so on, you'll be aware that even the Bible is just as ambivolent about homosexuality as society in general. The problem is that the Church heroically manages to dodge this fact but then, as we know, our lives would be much happier (and lots of servicemen would still be alive) if the poison, hatred and outright lies of the Church weren't around.

You see, you spectacularly miss the point; it's not about insisting that homosexuals are everywhere. They already are and they always have been, and always will be. It's about trying to teach bigots such as yourself to understand that gay people are just as "normal" as you are, and it is you that has some sort of psychological problem which prevents you from dealing with this fact. It's not surprising to note that truly normal, well-adjusted straight men have absolutely no problem or even any interest in another man's sexual preference. They're capable of getting on with their lives (and in this case jobs) without feeling the need to even question such insignificant matters. You have to ask yourself, why on earth does someone's sexual preference interest you?
However, I accept that I'm probably wasting my time even replying, as a bigot doesn't listen to reason, almost by definition. I think the only positive comment I could make is to be thankful that views such as yours have become so out-of-date and comically absurd that nobody with even an ounce of intelligence takes them seriously any more. As various people have already commented on this thread, the RAF needs people who can do the job and any sane individual would be glad to have a faggot by his side if he was the guy who could do the job better than anyone else. If you feel differently then I have to tell you that you are (thank heavens) a member of a very, very small minority of people. Let's hope the minority keeps shrinking.

[Babyfactory]

Aw, bless him. He needs to fall through a time rift and land in 1941.

[allan907]

If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country

Alexander the Great being just one Go check that in any reputable encylopaedia Billy

A number of ancient sources have reported on Alexander's attachments to both males and females. While the object of his affection may have varied, he was admired for treating all his lovers humanely. Plutarch has argued that Alexander's love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander's morality in this domain:

When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: "You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?"


So. There we have it. Alexander the Great. One of the most brutal and successful military men. And he likes blokes. And he denies it vehemently some times - bit like your post, eh, Billy?

I knew that some of the blokes that I worked with in the RAF were gay but so long as they were doing their job effectively I couldn't have cared less whether they were gay, had 4 ears, were coloured green or what the hell.

[Tim McLelland]

By all accounts you could also nominate Field Marshall Montgomery, who liked to do his "we're fighting men of steel, we'll have no poofs here" stance, whilst pursuing a distinctly different lifestyle in his private life. So unless anyone's up for suggesting that Monty was actually a crap Field Marshall...

[Hoots]

A few quotes from the MOD Accounts report 05 - 06

"3. The MoD’s performance against its force readiness targets has deteriorated in recent quarters on account of the current level of operational deployments. In the circumstances this is understandable. Over 30% of units are showing serious or critical weaknesses against both their peacetime readiness levels and their ability to generate from peacetime readiness to immediate readiness for deployment. This gives us cause for concern. (Paragraph 16)

4. We remain concerned at the availability of serviceable battlefield helicopters, especially support helicopters, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We welcome the MoD’s response that the potential use of private lease helicopters would remain under consideration. In Afghanistan the MoD should first press NATO partners to provide additional helicopter support. (Paragraph 24)

19. We are very disappointed by the MoD’s poor performance against its diversity targets. The UK Armed Services should reflect the people it serves and despite years of good intentions, the MoD has failed to achieve this. In addition the MoD seems to have little grasp of the reasons behind its failure to recruit black and ethnic minorities in sufficient numbers. We look to the MoD to give the issue of black and ethnic minority recruitment greater priority and recommend that it conduct research into why the Royal Navy and RAF in particular are failing to recruit sufficient numbers of ethnic minorities. We also recommend that the MoD learns from the experience of other organisations such as the Police who have increased their intake of ethnic minority personnel over recent years. (Paragraph 74)

20. Recent increases in the number of women entering the Services are welcome, and we accept that it will take time for this to impact on the number of women in senior ranks. The MoD should monitor the situation closely to ensure that there are no barriers to the career progression of able Servicewomen. We recommend that in future the MoD include in the Annual Report a table giving statistics for women in the Armed Forces by Service and by rank. (Paragraph 77)"

These are the conclusions and recommendations from this report, obviously much more to it than these four paragraphs. The impression it left me with from these paragraphs is that more emphasis is placed on reaching "Diversity targets" than providing and maintaining proper up to date equipment and having sufficient amounts of that equipment available at home to train on before deploying to the sandy places.
I don't care who fills a vacant post, recruiting should be for the best person no matter what sexual orientation, colour or creed for that job. However I do object to groups such as the Black Police Officers Association. Just think of the outcry if there was a White Police Officers Association. Or if there was a Hetrosexual organisation campaigning for Hetrosexual rights. I am sure many have heard comments about the White Hetrosexual Male being the most disadvantaged employee, well in my opinion there is an element of truth to this. I do not care about EO or PC, I believe in common decency and respect for all, no matter age, sex or colour.
This is more Blair Bulls**t and the same thing is probably happening in all government departments. New Labour certainly won't be getting my vote next time!!!

[Melchett01]

Whilst being firmly of the female prefering persuasion (Mrs M does look good in webbing ), I couldn't care less whether the people I work with are straight, gay, greedy (bi) or just plane deviants (Noo Labour disciples) as long as they can do the job. But I do object to having this sort of politically correct nonsense rammed down my throat when it is something that works only in one direction - surely it amounts to some sort of institutional harrassment?

When I was at uni, my UAS was banned from setting up a recruiting stall inside university premises at freshers because the LGB Club complained about the military's then attitude towards recruiting homosexuals and the Student Union bent over forwards to accommodate them.

Queue much muttering and chuntering from us because we were being denied ready access to the tons of young and impressionably totty floating around the place that fine warm summer weekend. One of the guys then hit up on an interesting idea that would have resulted in the entire UAS membership joining the LGB Club, possibly with the assistance of the OTC. When we tried to do that, there was hell to pay (not from the Boss who throught it was hilarious) but from the LGBs themselves. Admittedly, had the plan worked, we would have probably changed the Club's constitution by forming one big majority bloc, but that was by-the-by.

It appears that little has changed and that an overly-PC vociferous minority are trying to enforce their views on a majority that has little interest in their lifestyle choices, whilst refusing to acknowledge the other point of view:=

[XL319]

Here here Tim :D

[Tim McLelland]

It appears that little has changed and that a vociferous minority are trying to enforce their views on a majority that has little interest in their lifestyle choices, whilst refusing to acknowledge the other point of view:=

Au contraire - it's the MoD that is actively seeking the advice of Stonewall, not vice-versa. If you mentioned the matter of recruitment in the military to most gay men, they'd probably give you the same glazed expression of indifference that anyone young person would give you. It's no more an issue for gay people than it is for straight ones. It's just another example of our beloved civil servants wasting more money on stupid ideas that have no foundation in reality. Clearly, no gay man would want to join the RAF on the understanding that his workmates have been bullied into accepting his presence. What kind of poisonous arrangement would that be?

Gay men (and women) will ultimately only join the ranks without any reservations when they can see that attitudes have finally shifted to such an extent that sexuality is no longer of interest to anyone, gay or straight. Wheeling-in groups like Stonewall isn't going to change a thing, other than emptying the MoD's piggy bank just that little bit more.

[Melchett01]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchett01
It appears that little has changed and that a vociferous minority are trying to enforce their views on a majority that has little interest in their lifestyle choices, whilst refusing to acknowledge the other point of view

Au contraire - it's the MoD that is actively seeking the advice of Stonewall, not vice-versa. If you mentioned the matter of recruitment in the military to most gay men, they'd probably give you the same glazed expression of indifference that anyone young person would give you. It's no more an issue for gay people than it is for straight ones. It's just another example of our beloved civil servants wasting more money on stupid ideas that have no foundation in reality. Clearly, no gay man would want to join the RAF on the understanding that his workmates have been bullied into accepting his presence. What kind of poisonous arrangement would that be?

Gay men (and women) will ultimately only join the ranks without any reservations when they can see that attitudes have finally shifted to such an extent that sexuality is no longer of interest to anyone, gay or straight. Wheeling-in groups like Stonewall isn't going to change a thing, other than emptying the MoD's piggy bank just that little bit more.

You will always get a certain degree of hostility for not conforming with the majority way of existing / viewpoint etc in any walk of life. Although it probably does happen to a very small degree, as far as I was aware, the Armed Forces in general were not hostile towards gays serving - either from a recruiting standpoint or from a equality & diversity viewpoint. So surely those members of the gay community that want to join the armed forces (admittedly, probably a fairly small number) will join regardless of this sort of meddling if they really are keen to sign on the dotted line?

If that is the case about those that genuinely want to serve, why does the MOD feel the need to actively seek the advice of Stonewall? There must be some degree of pressure being applied from somewhere??? After all, it isn't as if we are flush for cash at the moment and can afford what can only be seen as a disprorportionate expense when compared to what the military - and indeed the gay community - will get out of it. Even the thickest of the thick in Whitehall will have worked that one out. So where is the pressure coming for this campaign from?

[Tim McLelland]

Good question - where does this kind of lunacy originate? Clearly, it doesn't come from the gay community as they have always had a distinctly non-military stance to most issues, so anything even vaguely connected with the RAF inevitably generates little interest, unless it's the occasional report in a gay magazine on an RAF Careers float in a parade, or something like that. Admittedly, some pressure groups have occasionally (and successfully) taken-up various equality issues with the MoD but to suggest that any gay lobby group has even the slightest interest in "bullying" the MoD into becoming "gay-friendly" would be incorrect.

As with most of these hair-brained ideas, it must come from some individual who's motives might be admirable, but who really doesn't have a grasp of real life. There are already loads of gay men and women in the RAF and probably even more men who would insist that they're straight, even though (for various delicate reasons which we needn't discuss!) they're actually bisexual in the strictest sense of the word. Undoubtedly, many of the people in this latter category would happily accept their less-than straight status if they felt that it wouldn't affect their career or day-to-day life, but while they can still see prejudice and bigotry beyond the more good-natured banter, they're obviously going to say nothing.

Likewise I'm sure there are many gay men and women who would dearly like to join the RAF but cannot reconcile themselves to the choice between being an "out" gay man in the RAF or effectively hiding themselves in the proverbial closet. The time will surely come when they no longer have to even consider such points but until that time comes, they'll be heading-off to other careers elsewhere. Dragging-in groups like Stonewall isn't going to miraculously change attitudes, so why bother? And more to the point, why waste money on the idea?

Attitudes towards gay men and women in the RAF will (and do) only change as a direct reflection of wider life and society in general. Admittedly, because of the RAF's history and traditions, it tends to lag behind mainstream society thinking, but catch-up it inevitably will do, and no amount of MoD/Stonewall bullying will make it catch-up any faster.

But fundamentally, you have to wonder where the MoD's priorities lay. Whilst even ill-concieved attempts at political correctness might be welcomed in principle, there must be better ways to spend what money is available. Even if every eligible gay man and woman in the country suddenly concluded that the RAF was suitably "gay friendly", it wouldn't even begin to solve the RAF's recruitment needs (unless by some miracle, they all decided to join-up!). So why on earth even bother with all this nonsense? Surely it would be better to simply allow the RAF to take its own, languid path towards a situation where sexuality issues are not even a consideration. Until then, the MoD's thinking (and money) ought to be directed to rather more important issues.

[SASless]

Melchett,
How does one go about proving the bona fides for membership in the LGB?

I am not sure all of the UAS membership would go along with some sort of initiation process that would require proving that qualification.

It appears a former US Army Chief of Staff is now on record as supporting doing away with the current "Don't Ask....Don't Tell" policy and states he sees no reason why Gays/Lesbians cannot serve in the military.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_go_ot/gays_in_military_1&printer=1

When I joined it was a sin.....then it was okay behind closed doors...and now it is going to allowed. Good thing I left before it became mandatory.

[eiggy]

I served nearly 13 years in the RAF and never once met a single homosexual or anyone I thought might be one. It is absolute rubbish to say there are 12,000 homosexuals in the armed forces

eh billy whiz were you fast asleep on duty by any chance? Didn't you ever hear of the one in ten,....obviously not.

a fantasy created by sexually messed-up people to justify their own position. Homosexual practices were universally shunned and no male I met felt comfortable around them.

Exactly billy whiz, were, oh and for the record - I've been to Georgia, and california, I thank you.

As an airline pilot I now work daily with homosexuals, and indeed can go for days at a time before I meet a hetrosexual cabin crew member. I have never once been rude to them and would never dream of doing so. Many of these guys are nice blokes who are kind, thoughtful and considerate. Nonetheless, I am unashamedly of the view that homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong.

Billy, why don't you just whiz off. Dam right you ain't ever been rude to any of them, why would you want to be unless of course they deserved it. As for the rest don't you think its best to keep your silly dated opinions to yourself? I dare you to approach your employer with that sort of opinion...balls anyone?

I would not have felt comfortable on a fast jet squadron around, for example, two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private. If you want a fighting force of primarily hard-nosed young men and women who will fight and die on behalf of the country then you surround them people who they are at one with. However much Stonewall and other pro-gay organisations may be upset by this, ordinary blokes do not want to be sharing intimate moments with homosexuals - they never have and never will.

Why not? Would you be distracted or someting? I'm sorry but I have such admoration for people who bear their heart and soul for country, regardless of the obvious topic, I don't claim to know what fast jet squadron is, although if your require direction on unspeakable things, I suggest you go read a book or something. As for the rest of your posting, I will take the risk and say - I can't even imagine what it means to be part of the true crap that goes on in this world, its attitudes like yours that, at the end of the day create carnage, I'm confident history will back me up on that. For the record I aint stonewall or any other pro-gay organisation, (for a blatant biggot, you seam well informed) What the hell is intamate about war/fighting?

By insisting you have homosexuals everywhere, you will destroy the fabric of the fighting community and the time you will find that out is when you most need that fabric to be in place.

Here's to never comin across you or your attitude on a commercial airliner, ps. don't drop dead in your crew seat anytime soon, I may just be busy shaggin the defib!

Oh and billy giving the current state of affairs in the world, I urge you to retract at least the last of the above mentioned - I'm sure us LGBT individuals will get over the rest of your bigotry.

[JessTheDog]

Removing the "ban on homosexuals" was the most enlightened decision the MoD took in recent memory. It's a shame that every other decision has been crazy!

[massingbird]

It wasn't really an enlightened decision though was it? They were forced into it after being taken to court.

Anyway, whilst we are debating whether "homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong" here are some extracts from an entertaining article in today's Times about a new exhibition in the Natural History Museum in Oslo:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2527347_1,00.html

The facts have been staring scientists in the face for years, Bockman says, as he stands in front of the gay giraffes. “It’s fairly easy to see because the giraffe’s sex organs are not what you’d call modest.” The problem, he contends, is that when researchers are confronted by such behaviour, they choose to ignore it. They claim it is irrelevant to their work, or fear ridicule or the loss of their grants if they draw attention to it. They prefer to describe two animals of the same sex frolicking with each other as “competition, a form of greeting, ritualised combat, things like that — even when we are talking full anal intercourse with ejaculation”.

Bagemihl had scoured every scientific journal and paper he could lay his hands on for references to homosexuality in animals. Tucked away at the end of long and erudite texts, or consigned to footnotes and appendices, he found that homosexuality had been observed in no fewer than 1,500 species, and well documented in 500 of them. The earliest mention of animal homosexuality probably came 2,300 years ago when Aristotle described two female hyenas cavorting with each other.

Bagemihl’s book provided the inspiration for this exhibition, and any notion that homosexuality is a uniquely human trait is quickly disposed of. You are greeted by a pair of swans — the very symbols of romantic love — who turn out to be a female couple. “Up to a fifth of all pairs are all male or all female,” reads the accompanying text.

The exhibition ends, predictably, with humans — though it rather prudishly refrains from showing pictures of gay men or women in the act. “Compared to the other apes, human homosexuality is neither extremely frequent, nor particularly rare, and in our species too the practice varies from one culture to the next,” it says.

There is also, prominently displayed, a quotation from Magnus Enquist, a professor of ethology at Stockholm University: “There are things that are more contrary to nature than homosexuality, things humans alone do — such as having religion or sleeping in pyjamas.” Bockman says he believes the exhibition should end the debate about whether homosexuality is unnatural.

[Heliport]

Bockman says he believes the exhibition should end the debate about whether homosexuality is unnatural.
Does that mean (on Bockman's theory) that anything which some humans have an urge to do cannot be 'unnatural'?

Bestiality?


Debate about a previous recruitment drive here Link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=187666)

[massingbird]

Of course not. How ridiculous of you to say so.

[Heliport]

Of course not. How ridiculous of you to say so. I didn't say anything. I asked a question.
Bockman says he believes the exhibition showing same sex animals engaging in sexual activity "should end the debate about whether homosexuality is unnatural."
How do you define natural and unnatural?

[An Teallach]

At the risk of biting at a Waah (surely no-one can be this obtuse?) ...
Bockman is saying that that which is not overly uncommon among many species in nature is by definition natural.

I'm no David Attenborough. However, I believe the zoological literature is not wildly overstocked with instances of polar bears trying to hump swans or orang utangs humping lions. However, I suppose small dogs trying to hump the lower limbs of humans may be the exception that proves the rule!

Thanks for the link: The intellectual level of the debate there was most edifying.

[massingbird]

So you did. Important distinction. If you had said it (or he had), it would have been a ridiculous thing to say.

I guess natural could quite well be described along the lines of 'occurs in nature' . I think that's his point.

[judge11]

What, then, would become of a species in which homosexuality was the norm?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Which, of course it never will be:ugh:

[Tim McLelland]

Hasn't this thread gone off on just a teensy bit of a tangent? I would think that in 2007, we really don't need to be wasting time discussing whether homosexuality is "normal" or not. Patently, society has finally come to grips with the rather obvious fact that homosexuality has always been a simple fact of life for thousands of people, whether you think it's right, wrong, good, bad, or anything else.

Much more interesting is the MoD's rather bizarre attempts to come to terms with the fact, don't you think?

[Melchett01]

What, then, would become of a species in which homosexuality was the norm?

I seem to recall that there are some species of frogs & fish that can change sex if the ratios of M-F changes - prevents the species dying out.

I guess that a similar transition would occur if the species were to continue. But I think we are getting into the realms of Mendel and Darwin now which is a little off track!

[Tim McLelland]

What, then, would become of a species in which homosexuality was the norm?

Maybe there'd be fewer fat people and lots of guys with better dress sense?

Sorry, there I go being gay, doh!:rolleyes:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"Maybe there'd be fewer fat people and lots of guys with better dress sense?"

http://www.littlebritain.tv/characters_daffyd.htm

There you go Tim, is this what a well dressed and well proportioned gay guy looks like:E

[Tim McLelland]

Indeed, you see us faggots are pretty good at making fun of ourselves as you can see. Some would venture to say we're far better at it than you straight folks;)

[threepointonefour]

I seem to recall that there are some species of frogs & fish that can change sex if the ratios of M-F changes - prevents the species dying out.

And without sounding like a Gyppo lizard lover, wasn't there recently a female Komodo Dragon in Chester Zoo that 'fertilsed' her own egg which actually hatched (or will do?)? I believe the phenomenon has a scientific/biological name?



But I do object to having this sort of object rammed down my throat when it is something that works only in one direction edited for comic effect ...


Sorry, cheap shot. (Not cheap as in 'money' shot, just ... oh, I'll get my coat)

[Billy Whiz]

Eiggy

Thank you for your attempted dissection of my post. In answer to your first question/statement, “Didn't you ever hear of the one in ten,....obviously not”, I am fully aware of the origins of that statement. It came from a report called “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” first published in 1948 by the American researcher, Alfred Kinsey. His subject group was 5300 white males and based on detailed interviews with them all he concluded that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behaviour at any given time and he believed that at any one time 10% were homosexuals. That figure was based on a very small sample for such a strong conclusion and in addition suffered from the limitations of socio-economic, geographical and racial exclusions. Almost all subsequent research has put the figure as lower than that and 3% would probably be nearer the mark, but unsurprisingly the 10% figure is widely disseminated from LGB circles.

You are entitled to call me whatever you want but it would help your case to have some knowledge about the subject matter of the thread. You are clearly well-versed in all matters homosexual, but when it comes to the RAF you should maybe read up a little more on the subject before posting. Your statements, “I don't claim to know what fast jet squadron is” and “What the hell is intamate about war/fighting?” are frankly so crass as to be embarrassing. When attempting to have credible discussion on RAF matters it would be reasonable to expect the participants have a basic grasp of their subject matter - you clearly do not.

Tim McLelland

Thank you for your views which are extremely well presented. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if you have ever been in the RAF. If you had you would know that my statements are absolutely correct about the unacceptable nature of homosexual practice among RAF personnel. You would also know that I am completely correct in saying I virtually never came across it in any shape or form. You might not like it but that was the way it was at the time I left in the mid-1990s. I have no reason to believe it has significantly changed now but others may tell me differently.

Although you write eloquently you are completely wrong on many issues. You suggested there was no point in discussing this with me as being a bigot I would never change my mind. Stereotyping is always the last resort of the zealot. I would suggest it is you that is the bigot as your rants about the church, religion and everyone who may ever disagree with you show. You have simply not accepted that many men (not some – many!) simply do not want to be around homosexuality in any form. These men are not just a few ‘religious nutters’ or poor souls in need of re-education but come from all sections of the community. Incidentally, I do not know which Bible you think is ambivalent about homosexuality, but any one I have seen is overtly opposed to it. You will also no doubt be aware that not only are the Christian and Jewish ‘holy writings’ opposed to it, so is the Koran and other religious documents from the world’s major religions. You can argue they are wrong, but it is incorrect to state they have no view on the subject. Sir Ian McKellen, the great hero of the homosexual world, was not so long ago to be found on stage ripping pages of the Bible which opposed homosexuality. You would imagine the reason he was doing so was related to the fact that some aspects of the contents were not too ambivalent! The problem he faces is that when he buys another one then the same pages need ripping out again!

In your various posts you have made several references to the fact that somehow the modern world has increasingly come round to your point of view and the old guard like myself are mercifully few in number. Bad news for you mate – there are a whole lot of people out there who disagree with you but are not spending their waking hours trying to make black look white. The fact you desire to do something and indeed that there may be some other creatures out there doing it somewhere on the planet does not make it right. There are people out there who want to have sex with animals, close relatives or dead bodies. Presumably you would regard these practices as not befitting RAF personnel. Sadly for the pro-gay lobby, they have yet to grasp the terrible truth that large gatherings of adult males generally speaking do not want homosexual practice in their midst and will go to great lengths to avoid it.

I will not be posting any further on the subject as clearly it causes upset to a lot of people when they hear the truth. The defence of our country has ultimately always boiled down to a few brave men and women willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for their buddies. Time will tell if that indefinable yet vital cohesion on which battles are won and lost can exist in the future the way it has in the past. Perhaps more worrying is the question of whether there will be a country worth defending.

[Mmmmnice]

As I watching this thread develop I'm not sure which group I'd like least to work with - the outright bigots - the terminally confused - the hopelessly illiterate? Either way I don't worry at all about the well turned out, gay flight commanders who gobble (whoops) up staff work...........can I go to hell for that one please?

[Bronx]

Billy You suggested there was no point in discussing this with me as being a bigot I would never change my mind. I guess Tim was using the Proon definition of bigot. 'A person who disagrees strongly with one's own strongly held views' or 'A person who doesn't accept that all changes in society are necessarily for the better'.
It would be interesting to know how many posters here are or have been in the military.
B.

[An Teallach]

Billy
I hate to tell you this but the great majority of heterosexual men do not spend their time thinking that homosexuality is perverse, immoral, unattractive and just plain wrong.

What time they do spend thinking about sex, they spend thinking about women. Most well-adjusted heterosexual men's views of homosexuality amount to not much more than "It's not my bag!" or "more rampant totty for me!"

For someone with such a visceral loathing for homosexuality, you seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the subject. It is usually the self-loathing closet homosexual who has to bolster the control of his own desires with a scaffold of quasi-moral (usually inspired by some type of God-bothering) thoughts.

Incidentally, I was in in the mid-90s and certainly don't recognise the picture of the RAF that you paint.

[The Masked Geek]

Freedom of thought I believe it's called, one of those basic rights and labeling somebody a bigot or even trying the "Thou protesteth too much methinks" argument presented by Al Teallach won't change a person's opinion.

Personally, I find the thought of homosexual sex abhorrent but I don't waste too much time worrying about it.

Some of us think it's right, some of us think it's wrong. Others couldn't give a damn. Why not just leave it like that.

As for homosexuals in the RAF, I can only think of one that I know of and one that I've heard of and both have been considered decent enough guys.

[polomint]

Hi Billy, was just reading your reply to Tim.

[QUOTE][Thank you for your views which are extremely well presented. Nonetheless, I would be surprised if you have ever been in the RAF. If you had you would know that my statements are absolutely correct about the unacceptable nature of homosexual practice among RAF personnel/QUOTE]

I am a lesbian who has been in the RAF for near on 7 years, and I have worked with many gay personnel it and, perhaps shockingly to you, I have never seen anyone have issues with it. I am also aware of many more gay ppl in the services, and most of 'them' can give banter as good as they get it. You seem to think way too deep into what people get up to behind closed doors and yeah, if you ask some people about gay practices, generally men, it makes them feel uncomfortable. But who the hell does? I dont go around asking straight people what they get up to behind closed doors!

So I'm gay, deal with it. I dont walk around with a big sign saying it, but I am. I enjoy my job and believe I do it well and respect the people I work with. Being gay has no bearing on anything work related at all.


Perhaps times have changed massively since you left Billy. All I know is since Ive been in, Ive never seen a problem with it.


Polo:ok:

[Bronx]

labeling somebody a bigot or even trying the "Thou protesteth too much methinks" argument presented by Al Teallach won't change a person's opinion. The objective of that old chestnut aint to change anyone's opinion. It's to stifle free expression of opinions by suggesting anybody who says anything critical must be a closet homosexual. :rolleyes:
You often get the same tactic in discussions about immigration for example. People who call for stricter controls get accused of being racist so the issue don't get discussed freely.
Same goes for comments like "For someone with such a visceral loathing for homosexuality, you seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time studying the subject."
If you ain't read up about the subject you get accused of not knowing what you're talking about. If you have, it's suspicious. :rolleyes:


B.

[talktothehand]

IMHO the facts are this - I joined a Service over 23 years ago that told us all that homosexuality was incompatible with service life. In one of my previous jobs I helped Court Martial Homosexuals and dismiss them from the Service. Air Marshalls and Knights of the Realm appeard on National TV saying things like 'Men don't like taking showers, with Men who like taking showers with Men' and we all healthy agreed amongst ourselves that allowing gay people into the military would destroy our ethos and ruin our operational effectiveness. Then came the decision to change (yes following a court case) and I along with many others predicted the worst. Well, along with these countless others, I couldn't have been more wrong! I cannot think of one incident which has resulted in any of the predicted doom and as far as the younger Servicemen and Women (our future) our concerned, this simply is not an issue. It's about time we all just moved on from this issue and concentrated on getting the best people for the job, regardless of their sexuality, colour or inside leg measurements.

[Tim McLelland]

Billy, I note your reply with interest and amusement. You're so wrong on so many levels it barely warrants the effort of even trying to correct you! However I should take this opportunity to mention the much-discussed question of what proportion of our society actually are gay. You described the origin of the "one in ten" slogan which is often accepted and while you're probably right that it was merely the fruits of just one piece of research, you fail to point-out that the subsequent "studies" which conviently produced a much lower figure, were all sponsored by political bodies which had direct connections with the Church. Quelle surprise. Even to this day, the poisonous Christian Institute peddles these figures plus new ones of their own, and even the most cursory investigation reveals that they are patently nonsense. That's not just my view - you can go and check-out the facts if you like.

In fact, for a homophobe, bigot, call yourself what you will, you'd probably be advised to stick with the one-in-ten figure, as every attempt to establish a truly representative figure suggests that it would probably be significantly higher, as the original research spectacularly failed to address the huge numbers of men who engaged in occasional encounters with other men but chose not to mention this, or to describe this as homosexuality.

But regardless of what figure you might care to choose, even the most blinkered individual knows that homosexuality isn't some passing fashion or a "lifestyle choice" as some particularly stupid religious leaders try to suggest. The inescapable fact of life is that a proportion of us are born gay, like it or hate it, and our only true choice is whether to accept who we are and get on with out lives, or hide the fact from ourselves and everybody else. Thankfully, we've reached a stage where growing numbers of gay men and women in the RAF no longer feel obliged to hide a fundamental part of their character because Billy - like it or not - your views are now shared only by an ever-decreasing minority of people. The vast majority of people in this country (regardless of the claptrap which is spewed-out by the Church to suggest otherwise) really don't think being gay is right or wrong - they simply accept that some people are and some people aren't. Surely, that's the way it should be, don't you think? I don't have a view on whether you're "right" to be straight so I really don't see why you should have a view on whether I'm "wrong" to be gay.

As for whether I'm in the RAF, I think you'll find I clarified this matter previously. I'm not in the RAF and never have been, but I've worked on countless book, magazine and other projects for over twenty-five years and I've always enjoyed the support of the RAF which has given me lots (and I do mean lots!) of access to RAF units and RAF people. I would venture to suggest that my position as an "outsider" has enabled me to meet a much wider variety of RAF people than you ever did. Likewise, as a gay man I also speak to other gay men and women who are in the RAF and as you might expect, their outlook is remarkably different to yours.

Do please offer us all some kind of concrete evidence that the widespread discomfort with gay issues that you describe does exist, as I would certainly be fascinated to know exactly where! I'm sure that despite the raher ill-advised MoD attempts to enforce political correctness on the RAF, the vast majority of serving men and women will make their own judgements on such issues whilst continuing to defend this country, and our right to have discussions such as these.

[jindabyne]

talkto,

At age 34, you joined how many years ago??

[brickhistory]

As for whether I'm in the RAF, I think you'll find I clarified this matter previously. I'm not in the RAF and never have been,

So this wouldn't apply then.....
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
but I've worked on countless book, magazine and other projects for over twenty-five years and I've always enjoyed the support of the RAF which has given me lots (and I do mean lots!) of access to RAF units and RAF people.
Ohh sir..............................

[Vage Rot]

Eiggy

Perhaps more worrying is the question of whether there will be a country worth defending.

:D
:D
The most sensible comment I've seen on here in ages!!

[Tim McLelland]

So this wouldn't apply then.....
Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Ohh sir..............................
Hmm, you've thrown that line at me before. Do you have some sort of problem with any half-articulate bloke actually saying anything of any interest on here, or do you just resent me in particular? Given my background and yours, I would have thought that my input/contrubutions would be rather more relevant than yours in any case, n'est ce pas? ;)

[brickhistory]

Hmm, you've thrown that line at me before. Do you have some sort of problem with any half-articulate bloke actually saying anything of any interest on here, or do you just resent me in particular? Given my background and yours, I would have thought that my input/contrubutions would be rather more relevant than yours in any case, n'est ce pas? ;)
'Tis not my line.
And no, I've no problem with any half-articulate 'bloke.' Just thought the bit in your earlier post was a great straight line.........

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

The problem for the likes of Billy, as Bronx alludes to, is that after years of being backed into a corner the silent majority are now fearful of ever voicing an opinion. To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc:rolleyes:

The mere suggestion that in the light of the July 7th bombing the police policy of increased scrutiny with regards to the Muslim community was right and proper and you would be shouted down and branded a racist.

You don't need to be rocket scientist to understand that the bombers that day were of Muslim persuasion and that, in light of our actions in the Gulf, the greatest threat to our shores at this time is from Muslim fundamentalism but it would make not a jot of difference to a huge swathe of this ethnic grouping who would simply denounce you as racist and in some quarters demand your death:( God help you if you drew a couple of harmless cartoons!:ugh:

Unlike Billy I do not find the concept of same sex relationships as either unnatural or immoral but am slightly uncomfortable when presented with it in public, however I do find the mental picture the physical act paints extremely unappealing but probably in the same way the hetro sex act is perceived by some in the gay community.

Where I do take sides with him though is in with the thought that sharing accommodation and ablutions is an issue and is something I for one I would not wish to do, but for what I feel are justifiable and explainable ( is that a word?) reasons as opposed to religious or moral standing.

I am a normal heterosexual guy with normal heterosexual urges for want of a better descriptor, and as such presume, probably incorrectly that normal homosexual guys have the same normal homosexual urges. It is scientific fact that the average guy spends a good portion of his waking and sleeping day thinking about sex, as my wife will unhappily testify to:E

For me blonde hair or boobs works, the sight of which will normally have me acting in a normal professional manner but mentally meandering, and all of us have that "button" that those that attract us push, however if I were to share accommodation or ablutions with a gay guy how would I ever know, without referring to button presses and the inevitable sniggers, that maybe he could be having sexual feelings towards me, and this is what I would find most uncomfortable.

I am sorry if it makes me sound homophobic and I suspect someone will point out in a rather puerile way that I shouldn’t flatter my self, but using my own urges as my yardstick how would I ever know that the older, smaller chubby guy is exactly the button that floats my shower/dorm partners boat.

With the above in mind how would you suggest I rationalise my feelings should I be presented with the above scenario. Should I just grin and bear it, not something we expect our female colleagues to have to do or would it be right on my part to expect segregation which in turn would not further the solid working reliance that life in the military requires. I am not sure what the answer is and would appreciate any well intentioned guidance on this matter.

[An Teallach]

Bronx
Actually, in all the megs of bandwidth that have been expended on ‘gay’ topics on Pprune, Mr Whizz is only the third person I’ve suspected of being a lady who doth protest too much, despite many posters expressing ‘anti’ points of view. That is two less of the miserable species than I met in real life in the Service, including the then Queerhunter-General for the RAF (a P&SS Wg Cdr) and one of Talktothehand’s ‘Air Marshalls and Knights of the Realm’ popular (not) on another thread in this forum.

The self-loathing closet queen is not difficult to spot. Firstly, there is the general tenor of the shamefulness of homosexuality coupled with a pervasive concern about how the homosexual will be shunned by his peers if exposed. The closet queen holds a special hatred for the openly gay person, as we break the omerta.

The killer, though, tends to be the notion of what homosexuality is and the fixation on ‘unspeakable’ sexual acts. The notion of a loving relationship of which the physical side is merely a part is totally alien to these people. For them it’s all about gratification of sexual desires. Hence, openly gay people tend not to be the ones having a quickie in the Gents or the bushes; if we ‘get lucky’ or are in a relationship, we tend to go to bed with each other!

How many couples do you meet at a mess do where your immediate concern is two of my squadron mates doing unspeakable things with each other - whether publicly or in private.
I’d suggest it’s a very strange character who, on meeting a couple (gay or straight), immediately concerns himself with thoughts of them going at it hammer and tongs – particularly in public!

The other common factor of these posters tends to be their total lack of wit or humour. This is a subject worthy of deep guilt and shame, not a subject for laughs.

Now, the actual subject under discussion was not the relative moral merits of being gay, or what forms of boudoir gymnastics gay people may or may not get up to. It was the laughable and patronizing discrimination in favour of gay people by the RAF, a matter I find a retrograde step and as objectionable as discrimination against gay people.

Personally, I wish the service would reduce sexuality to where it belongs: An exquisite irrelevance in a professional setting.

[Tim McLelland]

Always:-
I take your point and it's one that I've heard many times before. In essence, there is only one way to regard homosexuality and that is to adhere to the dictionary definition, without adding any further preconceptions.
Homosexuality merely identifies a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, in much the same way as "heterosexual" merely describes someone who is attracted to a person of the opposite sex. If you look at how much (or how little) that term might describe you, perhaps you'll see what I'm getting-at? What I'm saying is that the best approach is to turn the situation around on yourself and ask yourself what your relationship to females is like. I imagine that you don't lust after every woman you see, likewise I assume that you don't indulge in every possible type of perverse sexual athletics with your wife. I'm sure you're quite capable of being in a woman's company without having any sexual interest in her, or if you do, I imagine you're quite capable of keeping your thoughts to yourself.
So maybe you can see what I'm getting-at? The term "gay" is loaded with all manner of media-fed expectations which have no foundation in mundane reality. The horrible truth is that most gay men (and women) are just as dull as everyone else in or out of bed, and are no more likely to be sexual predators than you are.
I know what you're saying about the ultimate "straight guy's horror story" of finding himself in a shower with a gay guy (or something equally horrifying) but it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would and let's be er, straight about this, would it matter if he did? That would be like assuming that any girl that looks twice at you wants to get you into bed. The other point you really do have to consider is that you're making the sweeping assumption that unless you're informed to the contrary, all those guys you might already share a shower cubicle are all straight...
There is only one practical way to relate to a gay man and that's to regard him as a man who likes guys just as you like girls. It's that simple. The rest is merely an endless range of misconceptions, assumptions and fears which are fed by the media, the Church, bigots and idiots!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Tim,

We are definately singing off a different song sheet fella,

"I imagine that you don't lust after every woman you see".....not every women but most of them

"likewise I assume that you don't indulge in every possible type of perverse sexual athletics with your wife." ...........Never assume but out of interest define perverse for me because so long as it does not involve stuff that belongs in the toilet or is toooo painful there is a better than average chance we do it

"I'm sure you're quite capable of being in a woman's company without having any sexual interest in her....................if she is blonde or attractive or a good figure or dressed in an eye pleasing manner then too bloody right I will be sexually interested

"or if you do, I imagine you're quite capable of keeping your thoughts to yourself.........I am a true gentleman so keep all thoughts to my self pretty much all the time

"There is only one practical way to relate to a gay man and that's to regard him as a man who likes guys just as you like girls."

There is not one answer I given here that is tongue in cheek or in jest.........now do you see my, and certainly in my experiance most other guys dilemma:ok:

[Polikarpov]

Tim, I'd not take issue with much that you say but with "it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would", you would perhaps indicate that gay fellas are capable of displaying remarkable feats of mental self-restraint uncommon amongst the rest of us!

Most heterosexual women, I respectfully suggest, would not enjoy having to share facilities and reveal themselves to heterosexual blokes on a routine basis. Why is that? Is it just backward thinking; should they be more enlightened?

Whilst a utopia where every section of society is completely at intimate ease with everyone else may be a great ideal on paper, it's not really how the world works!

[MarkD]

I think the question of what % of the population or HM Forces is homosexual is largely irrelevant given that human rights should never depend on having enough people like you to form a protected group. Sexuality in general is not a group of boxes to put people in but more of a continuum - some people are pretty much at one end or the other, some happily in the middle - rarely is someone 100% gay or straight. This is the time of the metrosexual, of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Regrettably both lobby groups and bureaucrats do like counting heads.

Personally were I CAS or CDS I would not be seeking the advice of Stonewall in this matter. I would be asking An Teallach or Tim McLelland or polomint. But that wouldn't make for as good a NuLabour press release, would it.

Say one thing for Tatchell though, he's sound on Mugabe.

[Tim McLelland]

Always-
I do indeed see your difficulty but you've rather answered your own points I think. You know how you relate to other women so surely you can see how a gay fellah is no different to you, except that his sexual interests are probably directed to persons of the same sex (or both sexes if he's greedy). It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eyeing-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?
I think the essential difficulty is that there's this notion that gay men are all secretly harbouring lustful thoughts at all the innocent straight guys they might happen to work with. Rest assured that this isn't what goes on in our heads. As I've already said, we're not sexual predators, deviants, axe murderers or child molestors; we're just men the same as you except we're attracted to other men; nothing more and nothing less. I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?
I can see that if you're not used to being in the company of gay people it might be difficult to know what to think or how to react but have no fear; we're just dull, average, down-to-earth people who do all the same things that you do. Everything else is, by definition, a figment of your own imagination and preconceptions and nobody can do anything about that other than yourself:)
Flying Lawyer, I'm happy to discuss anybody's views but I reserve the right to say what I think about the Church and I'd say it again and again! The Church has been responsible for the misery, distress and even deaths of more gay people than I could even try to count. Even today, world-wide hatred against gay people is initiated and encouraged by the poisonous and hate-filled teachings of the Church. They have absolutely no right to foster this kind of vile hatred and yet we're obliged to listen to it.
As most servicemen would doubtless agree, we'd all live happier lives and thousands of servicemen would be alive were it not for religion. But that, as they say, is another subject entirely!

[Vage Rot]

:mad: Sexuality in general is not a group of boxes to put people in .

Unfortunte turn of phrase old chap! (or chapette!)

:mad: rarely is someone 100% gay or straight. This is the time of the metrosexual, of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. .

B0LL0CKS old son!

I didn't want to make serious comment on this thread but I have been driven to it! Most of us don't even think that our comrades may be gay - the thought doesn't enter our heads. Don't ask don't tell is the moral here and if you are raving camp then I guess you are not the sort of bloke that would fit in anyway as really girly girls don't stay long either - the ones that succeed are 'one of the boys'.

I've no problem with gays of either gender (male or female - just for clarity). I remember several comrades who were forced to leave in the early 90's because they were gay. I had a lot of professional respect for those chaps (Dave and Simon). However, those were the rules at the time. It was the RAF's loss however.

That siad, it doesn't mean that we should actively recruit from that group at risk of discriminating against others - after all, the MoD is an equal opportunities employer - unless you are white, straight, non crippled with all your faculties - then you are scuppered and go to the back of the queue!

rant ends
:=

[Tim McLelland]

Oh dear, it looks as if everything that can be said has now been said... repeatdely!

FlyingLawyer and Ratty - I haven't been "harping" - just answering postings that were directed at me. As for being a bigot, then perhaps you should check the definition - simply highlighting the Church's outrageous position doesn't make me a bigot, I think you'll find... unless you're actually suggesting that my comments concerning the Church are inaccurate?

Vage - I think you might need to try discriminating between a gay man and a "raving camp"... Exactly how you imagine that a gay man wouldn't be "one of the boys" is very hard to establish and of course it presupposes that these "boys" are all straight which may well be (and often is) far from the actual case. Just because someobody says he's straight doesn't mean he is, as I'm sure you're aware.

Polikarpov - I take your point but I did say that a gay man would be "no more likely" to be "eyeing you up"; that isn't to suggest that it's not going to ever happen but it's just not very likely. I just don't quite see why this oft-mentioned fear of "mixing" with a gay man should be such a worry for even the most homophobic of people. Homosexuality isn't catching and a gay man is no more likely to find you any more attractive than a woman is, so on the assumption that a straight man is entirely capable of having a close friendship or working relationship with a girl, what possible difference would there be if it was a gay man instead? The bizarre notion seems to be that gay men are somehow perceived as sexual predators that are harbouring dark desires to molest every straight man they see. Given that women patently don't do this, I don't quite see why gay men should be expected to either!

MarkD - you mention a very interesting point which is inescapable. Very, very few people ere either 100 percent gay or straight. Just about everybody on the planet falls somewhere between the two, even if they might insist otherwise. There are (as buddhists are keen to point-out) many shades of grey, and anyone who defiantly claims to belong exclusively to one camp (if you'll excuse the expression) or other is either deluding himself or everyone else... or both!

However, I digress - again! This is a very interesting thread and even though we seem to have drifted-off into atagents of unimaginable proportions, it's interesting to note that we all agree that the MoD's attempts to attain politically correct status are both ill-conceived and foolish. Nothing new there then!

[timex]

The bizarre notion seems to be that gay men are somehow perceived as sexual predators that are harbouring dark desires to molest every straight man they see. Given that women patently don't do this, I don't quite see why gay men should be expected to either!


TM, not sure where you get your info from but Homosexual predators are in the Forces. You may not have seen them but they are there.

[Tim McLelland]

If there are any "sexual predators" (gay or straight) surely they would have been er... dismissed, wouldn't they?

[Tim McLelland]

I must have a rather unusual dictionary then because, unless I'm very much mistaken, I (along with millions of other gay men and women) have been tolerant of the Church's outrageous and hate-filled outbursts and teachings all my life although, inexplicably, it seems that the Church isn't required to be similarly tolerant of my lifestyle. Go figure...;)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Tim,

Perhaps it's me not making things clear but I'm trying hard to get my head round your reply to me.........

"It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eying-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?"

How do I know that for sure, as by stating no it's no more likely that said gay guy is eying me up implies it's as equally likely that said gay guy is in fact eying me up and as I said before if said gay guy is really into short, chubby older guys than how do I know...........and I feel uncomfortable with that thought. Please tell me you finally get it.

"I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?.................nothing until you consider the following I suppose..........if I thought even for a moment, whether she drunk or lucid, that the lady in question had any sort of sexual feelings for me, and despite my age and physique it has been known to happen I would be chuffed to little mint balls and may or may not to let nature take it's course dependant on the situation but if said gay guy had given me even the remotest hint of his desires I would have been off out of there like a shot.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

If there are any "sexual predators" (gay or straight) surely they would have been er... dismissed, wouldn't they?

I work along side one, and if reports are to believed, and in answer to your assertion..........NO, why would they be?

[Tim McLelland]

I do "get it" but I'm just not entirely sure how you reach the conclusions that you do. Okay, you don't know anything for sure, nothing in life is certain, but I was trying to emphasise that a guy is no more likely to be looking at you inappropriatrely than a girl is. It's that simple.

Then you really confuse me! You say that if you were aware of any attraction from a woman you'd be suitably chuffed, and yet you wouldn't be similarly flattered if you received the same attention from a man. That I really don't understand. It's not as if either party is expected to act upon the attraction so why not take it as a compliment if you get it? It would be rather like the many times when I've been on the receiving end of attention from girls - it's quite flattering so I don't see it as anything to worry about.

Fundamentally, your discomfort seems to come from the notion that either all gay men are certain to be harbouring lustful thoughts about you (which patently isn't going to be true) and that any that do, are going to expect you do presumably jump into bed with them or something equally demonstrative. It just doesn't follow. That's honestly not the way it is! Okay, there will always be exceptions to the rule but my only honest advice is to suggest that you simply think of a gay man as being "a woman who you don't facy" and relate accordingly. Surely that would work for ya?;)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I would love to know when the adjective "tolerant" could be used with the following.........."I must have a rather unusual dictionary then because, unless I'm very much mistaken, I (along with millions of other gay men and women) have been tolerant of the Church's outrageous and hate-filled outbursts and teachings all my life although"

[Tim McLelland]

There you go again. Why should the Church be required to tolerate your lifestyle?
Of course it should for heaven's sake! The Church is supposed to represent the spiritual well-being of the community isn't it? What gives the Church any right to pronounce on such matters? What gives the Pope any right to stand on a world stage and denounce homosexuality just because he and his cronies say so? As far as I'm aware, the Pope hasn't received so much as one email of support from God, so until he (and the Church) refrain from passing judgement on me and millions of others, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't reciprocate. That's only fair isn't it?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

But has he received one such email of denunciation for the churches thoughts?

[Tim McLelland]

We're clutching at straws now aren't we?
That's rather like suggesting we should restore our belief in the Flat Earth because we've not received communicatiuon from God to contradict the notion! My point (as you must know, but I assume you're merely arguing for the sake of it) is that the Pope and Church have no right whatsoever to make judgements on anyone for any reason. They have no authorisation from anyone and yet they are still clinging to their power bases in a hopeless attempt at retaining political influence, even though figures inevitably show that interest in the Church continues to fall year by year across the UK. If there was so much as one tiny shred of eviodence that the Church had some real authority from some real and tangible higher being, then people might take them a little more seriously. But all they have is their belief and faith. That's fine, as I've said I'm no bigot and any church-goer is welcome to pursue his beliefs as far as I'm concerned. But to pronounce on the morals of gay men and women? None of their damned business I'm afraid, therefore I think we're entitled to denounce the Church's activities just as voiciferously as they do ours. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to adopt (no gags about adopting unusual positions please;) )

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Has anyone noticed the silent majority now seem to have found a voice and the vociferous minority are a little uncomfortable with this prospect:rolleyes:

[Tim McLelland]

Ratty- see my reply above if you're actually interested, rather than simply seeking to argue for the sake of it.

[Tim McLelland]

Has anyone noticed the silent majority now seem to have found a voice and the vociferous minority are a little uncomfortable with this prospect

Where exactly is this "silent majority" ? Beyond the pages of the Daily Mail I mean... ;)

[polomint]

Tim,

I understand that you are trying to voice up the gay side of an argument, but even I had to chuckle at a couple of things. Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural. To imply that its 'wrong' for them to be uncomfortable to get the same attention from a gay guy..is well, simply ludicrous. No, I dont have an argument or anything for it, it's just simply the world we live in, but, I dont get horribly offended by it..no scratch that I dont get offended by it at all.

The church thing may be suited for another thread though methinks.

Ta,

Polo:ok:

[TheInquisitor]

Where exactly is this "silent majority" ? Beyond the pages of the Daily Mail I mean...

The answer, Tim, is that we are everywhere - we always have been, and always will be. Just because YOU choose not to notice us, or ignore us, or seek to marginalise or discriminate against us, doesn't mean we are not there. And now finally, as times are changing for the better, we feel able to speak out in public and reveal ourselves for what we really are....any of this sounding familiar??

You spout on about bigotry and intolerance....Sir, you are the most bigoted and intolerant person I have seen post on here in some time.

Christianity, along with all of the world's other major religions, denounces homosexual ACTS as a sin. Why should a religion change itself just to accomodate your views? The whole point of a religion is that, should you wish to follow it, you adapt YOUR lifestyle to suit it's rules - if you try to adapt the religion to suit your lifestyle, it loses its meaning altogether. This is perhaps why Christianity has been in decline in the western world - by trying to 'diversify', it loses any notion of moral authority or leaderdship. Notice that a similar stance has NOT been adopted by Islam, which is flourishing in comparison. If you don't like the rules of a religion, then don't follow it - simple. You have no right to try and change it.

You claim that 10% the population are gay, and that that is 'enough' people 'doing it' for it to be considered 'natural' or 'right'. Well, lumping together all the world's religions that condemn homosexuality accounts for around 90% of the world's population. So your 10% are 'right', and the other 90% are just wrong or bigoted? How do you work that one out?

And whilst we're on the subject of '10%' - it is amazing just how much (almost all) of what the LGB lobby puts out as 'gospel' comes right back to Alfred Kinsey - a self-confessed homosexual paedophile, whose research subjects consisted almost entirely of incarcerated paedophiles, most of whom had already declared their homosexuality. His work should have been entitled "Sexual Behaviour in the Incarcerated Homosexual Paedophillic Male", the conclusion of which (10% of Incarcerated males at some time engage in homosexual acts) would hardly have been surprising, even if they were all straight! Kinsey is also the source of the now legendary 'sliding scale of homosexuality', which unsurprisingly is also utter bollocks.

And almost all claims for homosexual behaviour in animals can be traced right back to Bruce Baghemil, who claimed in his 'Biological Exuberance...' book to have 'observed and catalogued' homosexual behaviour in over 1500 species. Curiously, with absolutely no indepedent coroborrating evidence - plenty of drawings, but no actual photographs...strange.

I can see that if you're not used to being in the company of gay people it might be difficult to know what to think or how to react but have no fear; we're just dull, average, down-to-earth people who do all the same things that you do. Everything else is, by definition, a figment of your own imagination and preconceptions and nobody can do anything about that other than yourself

know what you're saying about the ultimate "straight guy's horror story" of finding himself in a shower with a gay guy (or something equally horrifying) but it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would and let's be er, straight about this, would it matter if he did? That would be like assuming that any girl that looks twice at you wants to get you into bed. The other point you really do have to consider is that you're making the sweeping assumption that unless you're informed to the contrary, all those guys you might already share a shower cubicle are all straight...

You seem to spend alot of time on here lecturing us about our 'misconceptions' about gay men, yet at the same time claiming to know how heterosexual men think, or how you think we should think and react. You are NOT heterosexual - so on what basis are you claiming comparisons between same sex and opposite sex attractions?

You say that if you were aware of any attraction from a woman you'd be suitably chuffed, and yet you wouldn't be similarly flattered if you received the same attention from a man. That I really don't understand.

The first correct thing you have said on here - you DO NOT understand how heterosexual men think, because you are not one.

As for you, An Teallach, I and many others on this forum are beginning to tire of your 'ladies who doth protest too much' line, used against anyone who dares to challenge your view of the world. The fact is, as Billy Whizz stated earlier, the vast majority of straight men are deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality - and that HASN'T changed, despite your fantasies to the contrary. The ONLY thing that has changed is that expressions of such opinions are made a little more carefully nowadays. The majority of personnel in the RAF, at least, don't have a problem working alongside a gay man who is competent at his job. But that DOESN'T mean that they won't talk about his sexuality in a negative way out of his earshot.

You are obviously very bitter about being discharged from the Service - but you were discharged because you broke the rules in force at the time. Accept it, and move on.

And both of you, please stop being so narrow-minded, accept that others do not think as you do, and moreover have the right to not think as you do. The world is not as you think it is.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

...and yet, oddly enough, the vast majority of straight men are deeply attracted to lesbianism :ok:

So it can't be same sex relationships that bother them ... er I mean us









===


If you don't like the rules of a religion, then don't follow it - simple. You have no right to try and change it.What? Not even if you were Martin Luther?

[MarkD]

WTF has the attitude of various religious denominations got to do with RAF recruitment. Last I heard padres didn't sift recruits. Can we therefore move this portion to JB?

As for the original - the State has no business in the bedroom, and unless there is a case of harassment neither has the RAF or any other employer (with the possible exception of pornographers). While unwelcome approaches during military deployments are a notably difficult situation, this is merely one of many behaviours which are not on when Over There and is therefore a matter of training and manners rather than regulation.

[Daffyd Thomas]

..back to the point

"Many of the estimated 12,000 homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stonewall, few if any serving gay troops feel confident enough to declare their sexuality publicly."

At last this recognition of reality can only be viewed as a good thing. There are many talented young people who won't enlist/talented people who haved bailed prematurely due to fear of harrasment from work place collegues and the establishment.

Its not hard to figure it out.

Bacardi and coke please, Myfanwy

[Tim McLelland]

Okay, I'll try to be brief! :-

Polomint, how on earth could it be "natural" for a gay man to enjoy the attentions of a woman?! My how I laughed!

Inquistor - I fear you dig yourself into a hole of incredibility the more you write. How can it be that you represent some mysterious silent majority when time after time every poll indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK really don't give a toss about homosexuality or anything connected with it. It's last year's news, and yet a minority still tries to insist that they represent the views of a wider majority that, inexplicably, just haven't bothered to say anything. Surely, any adult has to accept that this is just childish nonsense? It sounds like the kind of line that Mary Whitehouse used to spew-out while the nation sat back and laughed at her.

I'd love to know what evidence you have to support the notion that I'm a bigot. What exactly have I said to suggest that? My only blanket criticism has been of the Church and I've explained why I think I'm entitled to that view. Likewise, I also said that I have no problem with anyone pursuing their religious beliefs. Why should I? My disgust is at the way that the Church clings-on to real political power despite having absolutely no right to actually have any. Nobody voted the Church into their position and God certainly didn't sanction their actions either. And yet they continually try to block government legistlation whenever it is deemed to be pro-gay (when in actual fact it is merely pro-equality), and allow one of their leaders (The Pope) to continually spout poisonous anti-gay rhetoric on a world stage, while our beloved Arch Bish simply wrings his hands and says "ooh dear, it is difficult isn't it?"... and you're suggesting that to condemn this kind of activity is a sign of bigotry? If I'm a bigot then what does that make the Pope?!

Your nonsense about world religions is even more hilarious. Patently, it wouldn't make any difference if 100 percent of the world's religions denounced homosexuality would it? That just proves that 100 percent of the worldwide church is both wrong and dangerous. But I think most of us know that already, while thousands of servicemen are continually getting themselves killed around the world, all because one stupid religion thinks it's better than another one.

I accept your point that if I, or anyone else, doesn't like a religion I shouldn't try and change it and of course I wouldn't want to. As far as I'm concerned, religions should be free to say whatever they like. However, at the same time this must also mean that everyone else who doesn't give a toss about religion should also be allowed to say what they like without any of this blasphemy or incitement rubbish which is now being used by religious groups so that they can have the luxury of saying whatever they like, unchallenged. Walking away from a religion if you don't like it is fine, as long as the religions kindly avoid trying to interfere with my (or anybody else's) life. That's only fair isn't it?

As for your comments about Mr Kinsey, etc, I think you'll find that I mentioned this matter previously, if you'd bother to read what I've said instead of merely looking for points to argue about. As I said, Kinsey isn't a good model to refer-to, by any standards, but from a gay person's viewpoint we'd probably be better-off accepting the findings of just about any other research which hasn't been funded by a religious group, because every study has invariably produced results that put the infamous "one-in-ten" figure at something rather higher. So for any self-respecting homophobe, Mr.Kinsey's figures are the best ones you're going to get, unless you're going to try and grasp the ludicrous "research" which has been produced by comical groups such as the Christian Institute, etc, which are so laughable they don't even warrant consideration.

As for "lecturing" anyone, I think you'll find that I have merely been providing direct answers to direct questions and comments from other people. Or perhaps your definition of "lecturing" is the publication of a view which is contrary to yours? Surely, if someone is making a comment or asking a question about homosexuality, the viewpoint of a gay man is a good thing, isn't it?

I'm always reluctant to throw-in the question of why a straight man should be so keen to make such a fuss about homosexuality, as it does always sound rather like a bit of a "cheap shot", but your posting, complete with the colourful use of caps and bold type, does suggest that the subject really does upset you, in which case I think anyone would be entitled to ask why? It doesn't bother me that straight men are straight so why should it even interest you whether gay men are gay? It just doesn't make sense. But as you rightly say in closing, you should try to accept that others do not think as you do and the world certainly isn't as you think it is. I fully accept that some people continue to think that homosexuality is completely wrong - that is your choice of course, but you must accept that by the same standards, any gay man or woman would, by definition, take a contrary view? Likewise, if you can manage to take a wider view of our society, you must surely accept that, like it or not, homosexuality really isn't an issue for the vast majority of British citizens and that the Church is now an irrelevance? If you don't accept that fact, I fear you simply look as if you're fooling yourself.

MarkD - I think you sum things up nicely there. The State really doesn't have any business in anyone's bedroom. By the same standards, the Church should accept that it no longer has any right to regard itself as part of the State and refrain from being involved in any way. Unwelcome approaches whilst in the military are precisely that - unwelcome, and I assume that this would apply whether they come from a man or a woman.

It will be interesting to see just what impact the new MoD initiative has, once the RAF has been suitably "lectured" by Stonewall. One has to wonder precisely what advice Stonewall is going to give? Hopefully it is going to be pretty detailed and fascinating stuff, considering the amount of money they're being given, and yet I really can't think of anything that they could advise other than a liberal application of common sense! I wonder if we'll ever be afforded the luxury of actually reading their recommendadtions? I suspect they'd make amusing reading for everyone - gay or straight!

[An Teallach]

I've just re-read the entire thread of 130 posts. When ABIW first asserted himself as the "Silent Majority", the number of posters who had posted overtly anti-gay posts was ... er ... one (ABIW) - if one discounts the blatantly homosexual Mr Whizz.

The aptly named Inquisitor is, as far as I can see, the only other person overtly on your team ABIW.

More heat, rather than light, seems to have been generated on a discussion of religion or "The Church" (which one is not specified), which appears to me to have the square root of rock-all to do with the question at hand. Tim appears to have raised the question in response to the delightful Mr Whizz's accusations of immorality.

Inquisitor - As I have said, I have only identified one lady who protests too much on this thread and, I regret, I cannot take credit for it being "my line". It was Shakespeare's (Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2).

All I would say on the matter of organized religion is that despite years of lynchings, burnings, beatings, murders, sackings and abuse, us dykes and poofters have brought about a change in society with a death-toll inflicted by our side of precisely zero. Your synagogues / churches / mosques have arrived at their current schismatic state at a cost of millions of the lives of jews / gnostics / cathars / protestants / catholics / shi'ites / sunnis etc.

If your Gods / Prophets were to return tomorrow, I wonder which team they might decide had more closely followed their doctrines of love, even if we have ignored their doctrines on who may lie with whom, the sinfulness of shellfish, which of our daughters we may sell into slavery and how many people should be invited to the stoning of our adulterous neighbours?

Oh, and it seems the great majority of posters (gay and straight) agree that the RAF have been 'had' by Stonewall and that it should not be positively discriminating or patronizing gay people.

[polomint]

Tim,

I'm very lost.. :{ When did I say it was natural for a gay man to enjoy the attention of women? I dont recall...

I did say this however..

'Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural.'

So yeah, I was talking about the 'norm' for a second.

Sorry, I may be totally lost, but if it made you laugh then fine. :p


Polo.

[An Teallach]

At the end of the day it doesn't affect you Tim and is really none of your business, unless you work for Stonewall.

Apart from the minor detail that Tim is a taxpayer and it's his money the RN & RAF are handing over to Stonewall while whining about the lack of money for quarters, ESF, body armour, ships etc, etc.

[Tim McLelland]

You can inevitably tell when someone has lost an argument - they start getting childish;)

[An Teallach]

If that's the case, then the Great British Taxpayer has every right to ask the Armed Forces to stop whining to the BBC / newspapers every time they ****-up their own budget.

Actually, I think you'll find (certainly where major projects are concerned) it's the Executive / Parliament that decides how the MoD budget is to be spent. The RN & RAF case is not helped when either as in days of yore they waste millions of their discretionary spend sacking competent Servicemen & women, or nowadays waste thousands patronizing them.

[Maple 01]

I think you'll find the taxpayer does have a legitimate interest how the MoD spend the pennies - remember the curtains and carpets incident at Benson a while back?
Or is this a way of dismissing the chap because he’s a civie and you don’t agree with him?

Edited to add 'Bu@@er (oo-er) AT beat me (oo-er) to it!' Finbar Saunders lives!

[An Teallach]

Jeez, Maple: Don't bring S&M into this or you'll be getting our flagellant and Opus Dei-type Christian brethren excited! :}

I suppose at least the Kirk o' Jock stopped at objecting to sex standing up ... lest it should lead to dancing! ;)

[Tim McLelland]

excuse me? :-
trying to impose his thoughts and way of life on an organisation that he does not belong to. I dont agree with his way of life and I dont want have to share a room with a gay man in the Forces just because he says its the law.
Where exactly, have I imposed my thoughts? What nonsense!
Incidentally, if you don't want to ever share a room with a gay man in the Forces, I trust you're going to ask everyone you encounter to fill-out a suitable declaration form, possibly backed-up by a Trisha-esq lie detector test?:rolleyes:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As I said

"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc

AT:ugh:

"I've just re-read the entire thread of 130 posts. When ABIW first asserted himself as the "Silent Majority", the number of posters who had posted overtly anti-gay posts was ... er ... one (ABIW) - if one discounts the blatantly homosexual Mr Whizz.

Please feel free to re read my posts on this subject and show me where I am being overtly anti gay because I am a little unsure where I have given that impression, unless you want to brand me overtly anti-gay for saying I would be uncomfortable sharing a shower with a gay guy:hmm:

As I said and I repeat

"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc"

I rest my case young man:=

Ratty stop it as young Tim will have a coranary if you keep that line up, you can almost hear the nah nah nee nah nah with each post:p

Rapidly edited to to ensure AT is not confused:D Damn and blast tooo bloody late:p

[Maple 01]

Strangely enough it’s the very self-same Catholic church (and it’s off-shoots) that condemns homosexuality so much that has been a hot-bed of blue on blue action down the centuries!
Perhaps Tim isn’t so much “trying to impose his thoughts and way of life” rather is having a difficult time understanding why the nature of one’s sleeping partners should feature highly on so many other peoples ‘give-a-tossometers’

One of the problems identified here is that the general public (non-serving Div) and the Mob are growing apart - perhaps we need more social intercourse like this?

[An Teallach]

Maple, Quite. Sadly, not only blue on blue but blue on juvenile pink and blue action.

ABIW

Sorry, I must have assumed the worst as to which "Silent Majority" you were asserting yourself to be a member of.

However,where I am being overtly gay Honest, I didn't have you down as a lady who doth protest too much!
and I rest my case young man
Are you chatting me up? :}

Sadly, I can't cough to being in the first flush of youth. Who knows, we may even have shared some steamy .... no, these would be showers in the Service ... freezing dribbles with intermittent scalding blasts in the past. As I tend not to take my handbag into the shower, you were probably none the wiser. I seemed to last for 26 years before the Colours without ever getting excited in the showers.:rolleyes:

[squeaker]

Does this mean the RAF are desperately short of Tail Gunners?
Sorry, couldn't resist.....

[Regie Mental]

Is the RAF targetting of the LG community an unsubtle attempt to entice Mateleots disgarded in the imminent cuts to the RN (soon to be renamed British Coastal Defence Force)? :oh:

[An Teallach]

could tick a Homosexual box

You boys never give up with the lesbian fantasies, do you?

[Tim McLelland]

hmm...
they could be given different accommodation
Nah, it'd never work, we know what happens; as soon as we decorate and make everything beautiful, all the hetties will want to move-in to lounge around being "trendy and cool" as usual:rolleyes:

[TheInquisitor]

How can it be that you represent some mysterious silent majority when time after time every poll indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK really don't give a toss about homosexuality or anything connected with it. It's last year's news, and yet a minority still tries to insist that they represent the views of a wider majority that, inexplicably, just haven't bothered to say anything.
Pleae enlighten me as to exactly which polls these are you refer to - a hyperlink would be handy. The "silent majority" are just that, silent, because they have been bullied into silence by the likes of you, shouting "homophobe" at the merest hint of criticism, and of the stasi-esque police state now imposed on us by Nu Labour's social engineering - it is now, in fact, considered illegal in some circumstances to criticise homosexsuality. You are partially correct - even the 'silent majority' really don't give too much of a toss about how certain groups of people choose to conduct themselves behind closed doors. But the fact is, it ISN'T behind closed doors anymore, is it? It's out on the streets, flaunting itself on carnival floats in a most vulgar fashion. It is being foisted upon us and thrust in our faces from every direction. And now it is being paid for out of taxpayers' money, from a pot that is hardly overflowing, whilst servicemen die due to lack of proper equipment out in theatres, and live in squalor on their return home.
If you simply chose to get on with your lives as you chose, quietly and without fuss or ceremony, like the rest of us do, then it WOULDN'T be an issue and no-one really WOULD give a toss - but you seem incapable of doing that for some unfathomable reason. It is not what you are that is objected to, it is the way your agenda is forced upon us - "You WILL give us a hotel room!"; "You WILL allow us to invade your schools and indoctrinate your children that a gay partnership is as good as a normal marriage!"; "You WILL allow us to prance about on the streets and flaunt our lifestyle in your face!"; "You WILL hand over thousands of pounds of scarce taxpayers' money for us to further our own cause!" - THIS is what those like me object to; sadly, most of us are too afraid to say so in public for fear of lawsuits or even prosecutions in this neo-soviet state we now find ourselves in. I can assure you, though, that is IS said in private.
every study has invariably produced results that put the infamous "one-in-ten" figure at something rather higher.
Which studies? Please present your evidence for this assertion - preferably from a neutral source NOT tainted by a gay rights agenda, since you have dismissed many other studies as being the "lies" of the church.
I'd love to know what evidence you have to support the notion that I'm a bigot.
You have made it clear from virtually every post you have made in this thread that you are deeply bigoted against christians and / or the christian church. Calling the church "an irrelevance" might be deeply offensive to the several billion people worldwide who have deep and sincerely held christian beliefs. You continually tar them all with the same brush whilst failing to grasp that not all christians are outspoken homophobes. If that is not bigotry, then please tell me what is?
Nobody voted the Church into their position and God certainly didn't sanction their actions either. And yet they continually try to block government legistlation whenever it is deemed to be pro-gay (when in actual fact it is merely pro-equality), and allow one of their leaders (The Pope) to continually spout poisonous anti-gay rhetoric on a world stage, while our beloved Arch Bish simply wrings his hands and says "ooh dear, it is difficult isn't it?"... and you're suggesting that to condemn this kind of activity is a sign of bigotry? If I'm a bigot then what does that make the Pope?!
It makes him the leader of a major world religion, with some 1.3 billion followers. The holy scripture of that religion, the Bible, which contains all the beliefs, rules and morals that followers should abide by, explicitly forbids homosexual acts. He is, therefore, simply doing his duty as the leader of that religion by teaching his followers what is in the bible. This is a fairly simple concept, old chap, and not difficult to grasp. Does this make him a raving homophobe, or merely a concientious spiritual leader? I see you have reserved your vitriol almost exclusively for the Roman Catholic church, despite the fact that ALL the world's major religions proscribe homosexual acts. The way chrisitanity deals with homosexuality is positively humane compared to the punishments mandated by Islam, and still carried out in many Islamic states - where is your criticism of Muslims? Or is that a little too un-PC and non-trendy for you?
God certainly didn't sanction their actions either.
On what, exactly, are you basing THIS claim?
All I would say on the matter of organized religion is that despite years of lynchings, burnings, beatings, murders, sackings and abuse, us dykes and poofters have brought about a change in society with a death-toll inflicted by our side of precisely zero
I guess you never made it as far as Saudi Arabia then, AT?

[wg13_dummy]

Well said TheInquisitor. Someone who has said what most of us are not allowed to say anymore.



You boys never give up with the lesbian fantasies, do you?

Try it sometime.

[Tim McLelland]

Brilliant stuff guys - keep it up, you're almost as fun as Big Brother:)

[An Teallach]

I guess you never made it as far as Saudi Arabia then, AT?No, I haven't. Have gay Saudis started shooting people there?

I can't influence Saudi society. However, I've done my best to influence this one. It is worth remembering though that when Christendom was burning arians / gnostics / cathars / prods and tims by the hundreds of thousands, Islam was the repository of classical Western civilisation. Likewise, the Irish, who were killing each other in the name of religion until very recently, re-educated Europe after the Barbarian invasions. So maybe all hope is not lost. It seems at least the Kirk o' Jock Ministers and CofE Bishops have come round to our way of thinking.

You WILL allow us to invade your schools and indoctrinate your children

Personally, I would like to see the schools dealing with education. Hence preachers of hate should be barred from them (look up abomination in the dictionary). Do bible-bashers preach as vehemently against shellfish (equally as abominable as homosexuality in Leviticus): Damnation by Moules Mariniere, or are they worried the kids would be peeing themselves laughing? In any event, I'd rather see the kids told that it's OK to grow up and form whatever relationships suit them than see them molested by some priest.

"You WILL allow us to prance about on the streets and flaunt our lifestyle in your face!"

We did Gay Pride to death some time ago (I'm not actually a fan of that either).

You WILL hand over thousands of pounds of scarce taxpayers' money for us to further our own cause!

Actually, if you get off your God-bothering high horse and read what has been posted, you'd see that none of the gay folk on this thread are particularly chuffed at that turn of events.

Actually, I'm all for you believing whatever Middle-Eastern Mumbo-Jumbo you wish to believe. I'm for freedom of speech. I'm not for freedom to preach hatred. I'm also for people having the freedom not to have to 'endorse' homosexuality (I offered to speak on behalf of the Glasgow Firefighters who were disciplined for refusing to attend a Gay Pride parade, but their PC Nu-Labour Union was content to see them hung out to dry).

[Maple 01]

Tell me now, what if everyone decided to become gay?
I'm game, would they send me somewhere special? :) (Think 'Stripes')

When something is constantly in your face
I'd just like to thank the L&G community for showing such restraint in not using the 'ramming it down my throat' joke so far......

You boys never give up with the lesbian fantasies, do you?
Sorry AT, in my summary of 2,000 years of Christianity I forgot the pink-on-pink angle too - monasteries and convents, must have been the medieval equivalent to those Gay chat rooms you get on Sky....er, so I'm told.......;)

I suppose the bottom line is that for years the MoD spent millions conducting witch hunts against a group of people because of their sexual preferences, driving some to suicide along the way, this was, IMO, a bad thing. However, rather than acknowledging the mistakes of the past and letting everyone rise to their own level of incompetence on merit (the Peter principle) they set off to patronise those who are homosexual (and it’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’ for those too lazy to ‘pull birds’) and add the potential for division by giving money to Stonewall for advice and direction that may be seen as providing unfair advantage.

[Tim McLelland]

I was going to write a proper reply but the lure of Channel 4 and Davina McCall was too much to resist. When I glanced at the posting from TheInquisitor I could see that we'd obviously moved beyond reasoned argument, so I'll say no more, unless anyone actually has anything new to add? Otherwise, I fear we're merely exchanging insults which, whilst admittedly being good fun, is rather pointless; besides, it's distracting me from Big Brother...

[An Teallach]

Maple, you git. That'll be another bill winging its way to you for a coffee-splattered monitor.:D

[Flying Lawyer]

TheInquisitor


Another good post.
I disagree with several of your points, but you present your side of the argument well.
It's a pity Tim and An T don't have the ability to argue their points without resorting to childish and offensive comments about those with whom they disagree.


FL

[An Teallach]

Sorry FL but as religion is, by its very nature, irrational (requiring a child-like belief in the irrational) one is doomed to having irrational arguments about it.

As I am not only gay, but can't resist mussels, scallops, lobster and prawns; I suppose I may as well resign myself to being doubly damned for eternity.

Incidentally, I wonder if all those poor pilgrims who trekked across Europe to Santiago de la Compostela, prayed, munched some scallops and came away with the shells got damned for eternity. Seems a tad harsh, particulary on the straight pilgrims!:confused:

I'm game for an argument by PM. But calling me childish and offensive because I don't share your point of view seems to be exactly what you were accusing Tim of doing.

[TheInquisitor]

FL, thank you Sir!

AT,
Have gay Saudis started shooting people there?
Not that I'm aware of - I was alluding to the punishment metered out to gays in the kingdom - ie beheading. Although that was, admittedly, probably me reading your comments out of context!

Actually, if you get off your God-bothering high horse
Not god-bothering, old fruit - nor have I declared anywhere in this thread that I believe homosexuality to be amoral on religious grounds. I'm just attempting to counter some of Tim's wholly unnecessary vitriol towards "The Church" by pointing out that many millions of people DO object on the grounds of sincerely held beliefs, not ignorant bigotry - I believe there's a difference between the two.

I'm also for people having the freedom not to have to 'endorse' homosexuality (I offered to speak on behalf of the Glasgow Firefighters who were disciplined for refusing to attend a Gay Pride parade, but their PC Nu-Labour Union was content to see them hung out to dry).
Thank you - because that's all most of us want. Not to see you 'rot in hell' because of your proclivities, just freedom of conscience, to believe as we choose without threat of legal impediment. Surely that's reasonable?

as religion is, by its very nature, irrational (requiring a child-like belief in the irrational) one is doomed to having irrational arguments about it.
...in YOUR opinion, fella. Many, many millions find great comfort and guidance in the teachings of the world's religions. But that's your view, you're entitled to it and I respect it. I certainly wouldn't want to try and force you to endorse a particular religion, or religion at all.

Alot of the things in the bible that seem nonsensical usually have a good reason behind them - some shellfish, if improperly preserved or prepared, can cause serious illness if eaten.

Tim, my dear chap, I can't see where I slung an insult in my last post - I just asked for some refererrable evidence to support your claims. If you found that insulting, I apologise.

And just to be clear, the bible condemns homosexual ACTS, not homosexual preferences. The former is under your control, the latter isn't. In much the same way it condemns acts of (heterosexual) fornication - also not beyond one's own free will to control.

[Tim McLelland]

As I said I'm not biting to the proverbial bait; I'm all for an argument or a discussion but simply exchanging the same insults again and again is a tad pointless. There are other forums for that kind of carry-on.
I should mention one small point though; you can't make sweeping statements about what the Bible supposedly says or doesn't say. The point is, the Bible says pretty-much everything if you care to look at the right passages. Whilst the Church enjoys extracting the few snippets which appear to condemn gay acts, you have to remember that there are other chapters (Matthew for example) where homosexuality is described and condoned. You also have to remember that the Bible has been re-written more times than anyone can sensibly count, so whatever bits you care to hold-up for scrutiny, you have to accept that none of it bears any relation to the original writings. So I trust you can see how, to any non-religious observer, the whole business looks vaguely ridiculous. And as I've said previously, I don't think therefore, that you could blame any gay man for thinking (and saying) that the Church (of any persuasion) is absolute poison.

[Tim McLelland]

I take it that you have absolutely nothing new to add then?:)

As I've said, I'm not going to waste everybody's time by arguing about nothing.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Bet you do:rolleyes:

[pr00ne]

ABIW,

Bet he doesn't.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I always wondered about your left wing pinko tendencies Pr00ne, are you saying you have access to "inside" information with regards to Tim:E

[Arthur's Wizard]

Whether or not you believe homosexuals should serve in the Armed Forces, I can't believe that anyone is actually using the Bible as a guidline to whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Why not use Viz or the Beano? They're certainly more factual!

[Tim McLelland]

I can't believe that anyone is actually using the Bible as a guidline to whether homosexuality is right or wrong!


Unfortunately Arthur, that's the ridiculous situation us fags have always been in. Despite nobody having so much as one plausible reason as to why we should be regarded as being in any way inferior to the rest of society, we've been obliged to endure the continual denouncements of the Church, claiming that we're wrong, sick, evil, and so on, all on the basis of their favourite book. Naturally, we would find their rantings comical were it not for the fact that they still have influence in the corridors of power, hence their continual attempts to block any pro-gay (ie pro-equality) legislation, evey time it reaches the House of Lords. And that's just one example; the Church maintains a crusade against us in all walks of life, and yet whenever we make a stand to gain equality for ourselves and get rid of all manner of posionous anti-gay rhetoric, we then get howls of protest from people like The Insquisitor. It would be comical if it wasn't grotesquely sick.

Although we've thankfully reached a stage where the Chruch (at least in this country) is no longer taken seriously by the majority of citizens, and the Government has finally learned to simply bypass the spiteful wranglings in the House of Lords, it's still worth pausing to ask why the Church feels so strongly about us? All from a few vague, over-translated lines in a 2,000 year-old book? Nobody has quite worked-out what their problem is. The only conclusion we can reach is that the Church has identified us as the group who is most likely to have the guts to stand-up and show the rest of the country what hypocritical, nasty people run these religious organisations, and so they try to silence oir discredit us whenever they can. Our comfort is that no matter how they try, they're now either ignored or laughed-at. But make no mistake; the Church's anti-gay posturing has nothing to do with the Bible, even though this is their only tangible excuse; it's all about protecting their rapidly-dwindling power bases, which are threatened by groups that can see the Church for what it is. As usual, it's ultimately all down to politics.

I suppose in many respects you have to feel sorry for the average church-goer that wants to pursue his beliefs, and really doesn't have a problem with anybody, gay or straight, black or white, etc. Taking his teachings from the Bible more literally, he probably wants to love his fellow man (no, not in that way, get your minds out of the gutter!) regardless of what his leaders might tell him about the supposed crimes of homosexuality. Patently, the typical church-goer is being fed a line, there's no doubt about that. As I've said previously, there are endless sources of detailed research which illustrate that the Bible is, in fact, completely ambivolent about homosexuality, but the Church chooses to ignore this fact, and concentrate on a handful of throw-away lines which suit their agenda. Sadly, the congregations are being used for the Church's political agenda, as they have been throughout history.

But no matter; it's not as if any of this concerns us homos any more, as we've moved-on from that kind of blinkered prejudice, and although there are still some people like The Inquisitor who evidently still think we're a bunch of iron-fisted, politically-charged zealots that want to paint the country pink, the vast majority of right-thinking citizens in the UK have grasped that we're just like anybody else, and we want to be treated accordingly, instead of being treated as second class citizens.

It's in this respect that the MoD's initiative can be seen as ill-conceived. It's almost impossible to imagine what, if anything, Stonewall can advise. The MoD is already making great efforts to treat servicemen equally, regardless of their sexuality, colour or anything else. I don't suppose they handle everything as well as they might, but they're clearly on the right path. So what exactly, can Stonewall's expensive advice provide? Are they simply going to tell the MoD to "try harder"? In broad terms, there probably isn't much more that the MoD could or should do to treat homosexuals equally and fairly. We've probably already gone as far as we can down that particular path, but it is the wider aspect of attitudes and acceptance where there is still scope for change. But Stonewall can't do anything to change people's attitudes. What could they do? Put posters of gay men in every crew room and Mess with the caption "This is a gay man - he is a nice person"? It's nonsensical - people's perceptions and attitudes change through life experience and the wider experience of society in general, not through politically-charged bullying.

We already know that for the vast majority of servicemen, homosexuality isn't even an issue of interest, so, to coin a much-used phrase, if it ain't broke, don't mend it! Clearly, as has been seen on this thread, there are lots of guys who still have some issues about working with gay men (or even gay women), but in a service which has traditionally fostered the "one of the boys" image and actively endorses the kind of sniggering "poof joke" banter which (although rarely intended to cause offense) could obviously deter all but the strongest of people to keep his sexual preferences to himself, you can see that there's a long way to go. It's my belief that the attitudes and humour of the RAF's servicemen probably won't change at all, and many years from now there will still be endless jokes about "queers" going round every social gathering. But equally I'm sure the RAF will reach a stage where, in keeping with society as a whole, this kind of banter will not be anti-gay as such; it will just be good natured humour, and servicemen will be able to identify themselves as gay in just the same way that others can identify themselves as black, Indian, Chinese, tall, short, male, female, or whatever. Homosexuality won't even be an issue and surely that's got to be a good thing so that we can all just get-on with our lives?

The big mistake is when, even for the best of motives, one tries to push this process along. Paying Stonewall to get involved just antagonises people from all angles. But as I said previously, it would be fascinating to know precisely what the MoD is going to get from Stonewall in exchange for their lump of taxpayer's money. Pink Police to monitor conversations? Special "I'm Gay" badges for us homos and some "I'm Gay-Friendly" for everyone else? Three-view sillhouette diagram posters to show aircrew how to identify homosexuals? Blurry pictures of homos in the Recognition Journal? I have no idea, the mind, as they say, boggles.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I thank you!

[An Teallach]

What a pity, I had a peek in here early this morning and I'm sure Proone's contribution was followed-up by another blood-curdling declaration of red-blooded heterosexuality by Mr Whizz. Strangely, Tim, it was only you that he appeared to damn for eternity; I seemed to get off with my soul unscathed. Perhaps on the basis that I've obviously actually read the bible, so there may be hope for me. If you do come back into the fray, Tim, perhaps you should throw in a few quotes: "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that. Just for safety’s sake – there are no atheists in a foxhole and all that.

FL:

Come the Dies Irae, could you do me a favour and make sure you're clearly identified by your Pprune handle as well as your professional name? Just so that, in the rush of souls for professional advocacy, I can make sure I don't pick you to represent me as I stand before the Lord in Judgment?

If your performance were to be anything like it has been here, your sole concrete contribution to my defence would be an opinion that "Religion should be kept out of it"! Not, if I may hazard some unlearned client guidance, a good defence strategy in the circumstances.

Now, with umpteen billion souls to get through in a day, I suspect that the Ineffable Almighty’s patience will be distinctly effable. As the fount of all evil, I think we can take it as read that Satan for the Prosecution (and all his little daemons) are bigoted, rude, intolerant, hypocritical, childish and offensive. They may even resort to ridicule and the odd rant. Though I’m no Doctor of Theology, I think it’s a safe assumption that they will take a dim view of the Church. It would therefore probably be best if you didn’t deploy the only other argumentative weapons in your armoury:

Repeated assertions of Satan’s (and all his little daemons’) bigotry, rudeness etc.
Reminders of your professional status as an advocate.
Occasional critiques of the oppositions style of advocacy.
Selective quotes of lists of Satan’s words and phrases.

Even Mr Whizz (albeit in his fleeting post of this morning) essayed a rant against Stonewall: Their main crime having been a despicable outing campaign against innocent homosexual hypocrites. In fairness to Stonewall, I think he was confusing them with Tatchell’s Outrage. However, from this we could at least infer that he didn’t think it was a good idea for the RAF to be giving public money to an unelected and unrepresentative pressure group.

Three cheers to Mr Whizz for at least obliquely addressing the question. Perhaps M’Learned Flying Friend would care to furnish us with an opinion on the actual question at hand? I dare say the Jury’s nipples are veritably bursting in anticipation of the Learned summing-up!

[An Teallach]

Inquisitor

many millions of people DO object on the grounds of sincerely held beliefs, not ignorant bigotry - I believe there's a difference between the two.


That's allright then. One would hate to think of folk murdering queers, prods burning tims, shi'ites shooting sunnis and good ol' boys lynching nigras because of frivolously held beliefs, wouldn't one?

[Wholigan]

The Inquisitor - Not god-bothering, old fruit

How do you know he's old????? :E :}

[I_c_oldpeople]

Maybe with the non-promotion within the RN, an increased gay presence within the RAF, I wonder what stealth method of reducing the numbers they will use for the Army - Maybe they will allow them home long enough to see what living in the UK with their patners is really like?:uhoh:

Alternatively the gay presence in the RAF may be a positive thing. If they can simplify the worlds many and convoluted religions as previous, then JPA will be a feckin doddle for them:ok:

[pr00ne]

ABIW,
OK, so I was wrong!
Now, as to "inside information" I think Billy Whizz could help you there!

[jindabyne]

ratty

---- as in clockwork oranges??

[SADDLER]

Inquisitor, just read your post.Thanks for having the guts to write what many think.

[tablet_eraser]

I've been away for too long! Gay thread on PPRuNe! WOOHOO! Light the blue touch paper and stand well back!

My stock comments: not a matter of choice, I'm good at my job, don't bring sexuality into the workplace, I'm gay and Christian, Bliar's a tw@t, Daily Mail readers are closet gay crackwhores, etc.

Seriously, how many gay personnel have mounted 'pink crusades' as feared following the lifting of the shirt (sorry, ban)? Has unit cohesion ever been demonstrably upset by an openly gay serviceman/woman? As far as I'm aware, the change in policy proved to be a sensible option as demonstrated by the near lack of negative consequences.

There are far, far bigger things to be worried about at the moment.

[tablet_eraser]

Now that I've had an opportunity to read through at least a handful of the foregoing 179 posts...

From time to time in this thread, the concept of choice has been raised. I would like to make it absolutely clear that I did not choose to be gay - it's just how I am. I don't know why I am, but I am.

Now, some people ascribe this to genetics, others to upbringing or education. The concept that homosexuality can be promoted, much like a favourite football club or (God forbid) Pokémon is, to my mind, fairly silly.

As a Christian, I find equally offensive the vitriolic attacks on "the church" and the claims that my religion automatically condemns me for something over which I have no influence.

Many of the supposed prejudices are more prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church than in the Anglican Churches, for example, and even within the Anglican Church there are differing theological opinions in the USA, UK, Canada and Africa. And that's without even considering the Greek and Russion Orthodox Churches, the state-sponsored Chinese Church, Baptists, the Church of the Holy Trinity... I'm an Anglican, and although I'm unhappy with my church's stance on civil partnerships I'm happy with its overall acceptance that gay people are not automatically damned (viz Baptists).

Turning to the Bible: what about the many and varied statements on such subjects as consuming shellfish, treating women as second-class citizens, support for slavery, the death penalty for blasphemy, the sin of usury (Biblically, charging any rate of interest when lending money), gambling, et al? When will these all be condemned as great evils or unnatural things that should only be conducted behind closed doors? I'm an oyster-lover, and I'm proud to be able to munch my fish in public. Okay, that sounded a little suspect, but I think it makes my point. And the sooner my bank manager is being parboiled by Old Nick, the better for everyone!

The statements on homosexuality themselves are, to say the least, ambiguous, and more so when translation and transliteration are considered. The story of Sodom, for example, has been studied as a parable about homosexuality (famously), but other interpretations see it as a story about rape or a story about the rejection of God's messengers. In the Epistles to the Romans, homosexuality is condemned because it was, at the time, illegal. The same epistles make reference to long-forgotten wars. Should we take up arms against Philistine because the Bible says it's an evil nation? Should we cut off interfaith dialoge with Hindus because they worship graven images? Should we shout that Muslims are condemned to hell because they reject the divinity of Christ? Because they're all in there as well.

Goodness me - RELIGION IN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS SHOCKAH!!!!

Anyway, I work hard, I look after my troops and I try to be a good officer. My sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Apart from a good bit of banter in the Mess after work, of course!

[eagle 86]

A recent press article describes how, in the US, scientists have pinpointed the area of a sheep's (ram) brain that controls its sexuality. By injecting the area with hormones they have managed to turn some previously queer rams straight - there's hope yet!
GAGS
E86

[Maple 01]

It's not so much the fact that you're Gay that worries me, it's the fact that I believe you are openly a FC and therefore lead a debauched subterranean lifestyle, and have no more right to live on God’s clean earth than a weasel, you also openly encourage bright vulnerable young men and women to follow the same path......disgusting:= ;)

[tablet_eraser]

It's been perfectly legal to be a FC for some time now - get with the programme. What I choose to do with consenting scopies behind closed blast doors is my business.

eagle86 - it is, perhaps, the ultimate irony that the links next to your name just now read:

gay teens
gay church
gay bible
gay school

And I look forward to seeing the enormous societal problem of homosexual sheep alleviated with the ground-breaking, completely necessary, non-sinister animal experimentation you mentioned. Truly man has tamed nature. IIRC the article is in the current New Scientist.

[Tim McLelland]

gay people are not automatically damned (viz Baptists).


that's awfully kind of them - I'm sure we're glad that they approve:rolleyes:

[tablet_eraser]

It helps to maintain the context of the paragraph you're quoting from. I'm happy with my church's general stance. I wouldn't do anything as grandoise as claim that I represent all gay people's views. I couldn't give a damn whether the Baptists like me or not, to be quite frank!

[Tim McLelland]

Indeed, this is what I (and most of my fellow homos) find so offensive about the various branches of the Church - the implication that we'd even care what they think, but that they still try to insist that they should be able to exercise political influence with our government, even though in terms of numbers there are more queers than church-goers. It's complete madness.

[brickhistory]

even though in terms of numbers there are more queers than church-goers.


Prove it.............

[Had Enough 77]

Wouldn't it be crazy if there was the kind of recruiting policy that gave the job to the best person for it may they be black, brown, yelow, white,gay or lesbian or blue like myself (scottish tan).

It is getting beyond a joke when good people are not getting jobs due to positive discrimination. The whole idea of it is ludicrus brought about by some complete politically correct w****rs. An example of this, a freind is a retained fireman, he went for fulltime post, post given to lesbian. She then goes through training arrives at station and gets sacked for being dangerous. The reason being when she went through training the goal posts were constantly moved for her. I kid you not.

Don't get me wrong i would be quite happy for the next guy/girl to be gay if they were the best person for the job. I have seen the system twisted by a cetain helicopter navigator with whom i was on IOT with. He was due to get chopped at shawbury, decided to come out when the worst was going to happen now he is a front line helo nav. BRILLIANT!!!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
This is not the kind of person that the air force needs be he straght or gay.

I think the money that is being used could really be better used, if a gay person wants to join the forces i think they would be the kind of person who would notice the normal advertising/recruitment.

Rant over.:O

[Tim McLelland]

Prove it.............

Better still, if it upsets you that much, you prove otherwise... or even better still, try saying something interesting instead of simply posting-up sniping comments every time you see something you don't like? Just a thought...

[Maple 01]

Had Enough 77, don't be silly!

Brick - er roughly - usual rules of Googling apply

According to the CIA in Jul 06 there were 6,525,170,264 people on the planet

Of that 33% are nominally Christian (2,039,000,000)

of that approx are 1,098,366,00 RC (2004)

Others approx 940,634,000 are Other, mainly Protestant (2004)

Depending on how many are active church goers 10-70%

Anything from 652,517,026 to oh I don't know, er lots

Depending on whether you go for the 3%, 5% or 10% figures for homosexuality you've got 195,755,107, 326,258,510 or 652,517,020 ladies in comfortable shoes and gentlemen of impeccable taste and grooming

So as far as I can see those of the Left-foot persuasion (RC) do indeed outnumber those who are acquainted with the love that dare not speak it’s name

But if you are a Proddy dog (Protestant), because of its lack of hetogenio, homog, er, central control you are outnumbered! Not only that, as an unknown percentage of God botherers ahhm, ‘bat for the opposition’ the odds are even worse!

'course I may be talking Bolox

[brickhistory]

edited to add: As usual, someone was both quicker and presented it better than I. Thanks, Maple01!


Better still, if it upsets you that much, you prove otherwise... ...
Let's see, the world has some 6.4 billion folks scrabbling around
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/xx/popula.html
roughly 2.1 billion of them are Christians of various denominations, http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060106/22515.htm
around 1.6 billion Muslims, http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html,
and I'll not bother to post Hindu, Sikh, and many other religions estimated adherents but well over half of the world's population seems to belong to some sort of religion. Granted not all of them attend 'church,' but let's say 30% do (I think the percentage is much higher, but just for this point, let's go on the low side).
That's nearly a billion church-goers. Are there more than that who consider themselves gay/lesbian?
or even better still, try saying something interesting instead of simply posting-up sniping comments every time you see something you don't like? Just a thought...
"Interesting" would be in the eye of the reader, no?

[An Teallach]

Maple - God you must be bored! However, thanks for attempting to disappear up your own fundament in statistics in order to enlighten us! Perhaps if Tim had restricted his comparison to the largely non-church-going UK we would have avoided this. The position is, of course, completely different in the US. However, at least the US had the good sense to keep the bishops out of the legislature.

HE77 - Of course you're being silly ;) . Common sense (treat your gay chaps and chapesses the same as everyone else) costs nothing, therefore it cannot be demonstrated in the annual accounts that snr officers have been tackling a 'problem' if they haven't spent any money on it.

Tablet - Welcome to the fray, young bean. We've had all the input from the crusty old farts (polomint excepted). Perhaps, as a young thrusting (oo-er missus) officer who happens to be gay, you'd care to enlighten us with an opinion on the actual questions at hand?

Should the RAF be doling out the Defence Vote to pressure groups?

What benefits or detriments might accrue to young, serving gay folk?

As far as I could see, the only tangible benefit in the Telegraph article was survivor pensions which will have to be done anyway to comply with non-discrimination legislation.

Senior RAF officers will also receive a training package "designed to educate employers and their staff about the benefits of building an inclusive workplace environment for lesbian and gay staff".

Are our senior officers so thick that they cannot see for themselves the benefits of non-discrimination?

Stonewall will offer RAF personnel the chance to attend its intensive two-day professional development training exercise for "rising- lesbian and gay professionals in the workplace".

What might you learn from Stonewall that IOT and Staff College can't teach you about leadership?

creating an LGB staff group and sponsoring events such as the annual Gay Pride festival.

What will a staff group actually talk about? Should the Defence Vote be used for sponsoring pi55-ups for minority groups?

[FJJP]

The US Forces have got it just about right:

Don't ask and don't tell.

Who cares what colour, religion or sexual orientation a person is so long as he or she does his or her job?

Not me. The Brit Forces have served alongside homosexuals for centuries quite successfully - only until recently, they didn't know it.

It's POSITIVE discrimination that gets up the noses of people in this country...

[ORAC]

The US Forces have got it just about right: Don't ask and don't tell.
Israeli experience may sway Army policy on gays - In U.S., "don't ask, don't tell" is losing ground. (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/08/Worldandnation/Israeli_experience_ma.shtml)

John M. Shalikashvili: It's time to ask: Should they tell? (http://www.startribune.com/562/story/913474.html)

[Tim McLelland]

Although it is becoming increasingly tedious to even waste my time replying to you Brickhistory, I think (if you bother to actually read it) you'll find that in my original comment, I was referring to the numbers of gay people versus the number of chuch-goers in the UK, and how our church leaders still try to cling to political power here in the UK despite there being considerably more gay people than church-goers. Ironic by anybody's standards. Naturally, I couldn't give a toss what lunacy might occur overseas!:)

[Two's in]

The worst that could happen to you if you fell in with a homosexual is you would be bu99ered, whereas if you fell in with a Baptist* you are damned to a life of giving all your money to the church and being lectured by some sanctimonious choir-boy fiddling perv every Sunday. I'll take the Larry Grayson Protocol any day, after all, what doesn't kill you makes your eyes water. (making no assumptions of how attractive I may be to persons of the same sex).

*Insert name of popular religion here.

[Tim McLelland]

if you fell in with a homosexual is you would be bu99ered
ahh yes indeed, the very stuff of heterosexual fantasy;)

I quite agree with you btw:)

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"quote:
Originally Posted by Two's in
if you fell in with a homosexual is you would be bu99ered

ahh yes indeed, the very stuff of heterosexual fantasy"

Timothy,
Suggest for the sake of accuracy that you delete fantasy and insert nightmare:rolleyes:

[Tim McLelland]

You'd think so, wouldn't you, and yet this dark, nightmare vision of being raped by some evil homo seems to be more prevalent in the minds of (some) straight people than it ever is in the minds of us fags. Okay, maybe it's because we know what a silly myth it is, but on the other hand, you do have to wonder if, when a nightmare runs through a person's mind enough times, it's actually a fantasy... just a thought...;)

[tablet_eraser]

Timothy,
Suggest for the sake of accuracy that you delete fantasy and insert nightmare

Aww, even with a good-looking young chap like me? I'm hurt! :{

ABIW, we've gone over our arguments on this subject in the past... shall I summarise? We disagree with each other, and think it's better debated over a pint or several. And not somewhere with a name like "Queen's Shilling", "The Gay Gordon" or "The Cock-Pit". :E

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"Aww, even with a good-looking young chap like me? I'm hurt!"

TE,

I suspect that with what you have in mind, added to the fact that I still make a noise when I fart it is in fact ME that would be hurt:ooh:

Timothy dear chap,

"You'd think so, wouldn't you, and yet this dark, nightmare vision of being raped by some evil hetro seems to be more prevalent in the minds of (some) gay people than it ever is in the minds of us straights. Okay, maybe it's because we know what a silly myth it is, but on the other hand, you do have to wonder if, when a nightmare runs through a person's mind enough times, it's actually a fantasy... just a thought...;)

Edited because spinnings easy:p

[tablet_eraser]

Touché on both counts, ABIW! :ok:
Night shift, perchance?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

No TE,

Awoke early as I had a bad dream, rest assured tho' Tim it was totally hetro luvvy:p

[Mad_Mark]

As I've said, I'm not going to waste everybody's time by arguing about nothing.

If only Timarsey, if only :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad: