RAF officers to join gay pride march
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people are getting a little confussed about what it is they really dislike here.
I have known a few gay people, some of which served in the RAF, and feel I could consider them friends as well as colleagues. However, I strongly feel that gay sex is abhorrent and have no wish for them to bring up the subject in public, just as many straight people do not wish the details of straight sex to be a public talking point. But if they keep their signs of affection in private then I see them as just another person.
What I can not stand though is the namby-pamby, flaunt it about, mincing poof type of gay
If a non-mincing gay wishes to join the RAF then good luck to him, but he should be recruited in the same way as the rest of us, not because the recruiters singled out a 'specialist' rally/march/protest (call it what you will)!
Why was THIS march singled out for a recruiting drive? Is the 'brain' behind the idea gay himself
Mad Mark!!!
I have known a few gay people, some of which served in the RAF, and feel I could consider them friends as well as colleagues. However, I strongly feel that gay sex is abhorrent and have no wish for them to bring up the subject in public, just as many straight people do not wish the details of straight sex to be a public talking point. But if they keep their signs of affection in private then I see them as just another person.
What I can not stand though is the namby-pamby, flaunt it about, mincing poof type of gay
If a non-mincing gay wishes to join the RAF then good luck to him, but he should be recruited in the same way as the rest of us, not because the recruiters singled out a 'specialist' rally/march/protest (call it what you will)!
Why was THIS march singled out for a recruiting drive? Is the 'brain' behind the idea gay himself
Mad Mark!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad_Mark
You're absolutely right: this shouldn't be a debate about what consenting adults get up to in the sack, but, for those who want to debate that particular point, fine.
I suppose a lot of the old guard still have problems adjusting to the fact the RAF went overnight from officially endorsing homophobia, to officially condemning it. But it has been nearly four years now. Some people also find it difficult to get their head around the fact Gay Pride is about much more than how people like their nookie, but I think the debate about the nature and purpose of Manchester Pride has been well and truly exhausted in this thread.
I'm sure the person who took the final decision regarding the RAF's participation in Manc Pride isn't gay and if they'd consulted a cross-section of gay personnel, they might have done things differently. For a start, many gay people (especially many serving in the armed forces) do not believe strutting around with a feather up your @rse is either representative of gay people or does anything for the advancement gay rights. A static AFCO stand would have demonstrated the RAF's commitment to diversity, while distancing the Service from the more exotic aspects of Pride. That said, any RAF presence, however modest, was bound to be reported by the press and would have been seen as an excuse for much of the frivolous and ill-informed homophobic ranting demonstrated in this thread.
It may surprise you that many (I'd say the majority) of gay men dislike 'camp' behaviour. The media have a lot to answer for, in that they help to form many straight people's perception of gay people as camp, OTT stereotypes. Such people are a gift to the larger-than-life world of entertainment, but are unrepresentative of the majority of gay people. Still, live and let live.
You're absolutely right: this shouldn't be a debate about what consenting adults get up to in the sack, but, for those who want to debate that particular point, fine.
I suppose a lot of the old guard still have problems adjusting to the fact the RAF went overnight from officially endorsing homophobia, to officially condemning it. But it has been nearly four years now. Some people also find it difficult to get their head around the fact Gay Pride is about much more than how people like their nookie, but I think the debate about the nature and purpose of Manchester Pride has been well and truly exhausted in this thread.
I'm sure the person who took the final decision regarding the RAF's participation in Manc Pride isn't gay and if they'd consulted a cross-section of gay personnel, they might have done things differently. For a start, many gay people (especially many serving in the armed forces) do not believe strutting around with a feather up your @rse is either representative of gay people or does anything for the advancement gay rights. A static AFCO stand would have demonstrated the RAF's commitment to diversity, while distancing the Service from the more exotic aspects of Pride. That said, any RAF presence, however modest, was bound to be reported by the press and would have been seen as an excuse for much of the frivolous and ill-informed homophobic ranting demonstrated in this thread.
It may surprise you that many (I'd say the majority) of gay men dislike 'camp' behaviour. The media have a lot to answer for, in that they help to form many straight people's perception of gay people as camp, OTT stereotypes. Such people are a gift to the larger-than-life world of entertainment, but are unrepresentative of the majority of gay people. Still, live and let live.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Brittany France
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF and the GAYS
As a wrinkly retired RAF bod, who has always seen life as a cartoon. I have long had the picture of the N***s of T W article, relating the story of a shocked MoD, unravelling the problem, of the Station Commander and his 'Partner' the SWO, arguing as to whether they should have a Officers Married Quarter or an Airmans Married Quarter?
The imagination boggles when you think this through.
The imagination boggles when you think this through.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud,
You say "Live and let live", yet you ferociously denounce anyone who's opinion does not conform to your own 'right-on' thinking. You sound like a liberal - if so, surely you must accept that everyone is entitled to hold and express their own opinions (a right that is now enshrined in law - ECHR Article 12) even if their opinion is 'unpopular or disturbing' (wording of the convention).
The real problem nowadays, IMHO, is 'liberal' nazis such as yourself who seem to think it is their god-given right to tell others how they should think. This is the REAL purpose of Gay Pride - enforcing their views and lifestyles upon the public, and as such we should have had nothing to do with it. This was an error of judgement in the extreme, and if it was made by a senior officer whose judgement I may have to follow as an order during a conflict, i shudder to think what the result may be. This farce has only served to diminish my already minimal trust in my chain of command, and I trust many, many others will feel the same way.
Surely we should be spending our time and money trying to recruit quality people of the right calibre to do the difficult and dangerous job we often do, rather than trying to promote 'diversity'? At the end of the day, who but the most closed-minded gives a sh1t if the bloke / bird next to you is queer / black / asian / etc - as long as they can do the job well and they conduct themselves in a way which befits the general service ethos? What they do on their own time as a private individual is their business.
Just for the record, I am not Homophobic. I have Christian beliefs (the Bible condemns homosexual ACTS, NOT homosexual orientation, which one has no control over) and therefore cannot accept that homosexuality is a normal human behaviour (after all, what is the point of sex? why are we even capable of having it? Sex that CANNOT (rather than DOES NOT) end in reproduction is, biologically speaking, pointless - that is the whole raison d'etre of sexual desire - locically, homosexual desire CANNOT be natural).
As for SLFs post about homosexuality being rife in the animal kingdom - the pathetic self-justification line often trotted out by Stonewall - where is the evidence of this?? I've researched this and have never been able to find any.
My views do not constitute a 'hate-crime' and i would not hold a person's sexuality against them. What i object to is homosexuality being portrayed as normal, when it is not.
Taking a scan back through the thread, it seems that most people here are not homophobic (ie objecting to people BEING gay), they just object to the way gay people seem to conduct themselves (or allow themselves to be portrayed).
And like me, Scud, most people object strongly to being told how to think, or what opinions they may express. I reiterate what I said earlier -
neither you nor any other trendy liberal nazis like you will EVER succeed in telling me what to think or say.
...and by the way, your response to the 'molotov cocktail' banter was pathetic. Do you really honestly think that that was meant as a serious threat??????????
You say "Live and let live", yet you ferociously denounce anyone who's opinion does not conform to your own 'right-on' thinking. You sound like a liberal - if so, surely you must accept that everyone is entitled to hold and express their own opinions (a right that is now enshrined in law - ECHR Article 12) even if their opinion is 'unpopular or disturbing' (wording of the convention).
The real problem nowadays, IMHO, is 'liberal' nazis such as yourself who seem to think it is their god-given right to tell others how they should think. This is the REAL purpose of Gay Pride - enforcing their views and lifestyles upon the public, and as such we should have had nothing to do with it. This was an error of judgement in the extreme, and if it was made by a senior officer whose judgement I may have to follow as an order during a conflict, i shudder to think what the result may be. This farce has only served to diminish my already minimal trust in my chain of command, and I trust many, many others will feel the same way.
Surely we should be spending our time and money trying to recruit quality people of the right calibre to do the difficult and dangerous job we often do, rather than trying to promote 'diversity'? At the end of the day, who but the most closed-minded gives a sh1t if the bloke / bird next to you is queer / black / asian / etc - as long as they can do the job well and they conduct themselves in a way which befits the general service ethos? What they do on their own time as a private individual is their business.
Just for the record, I am not Homophobic. I have Christian beliefs (the Bible condemns homosexual ACTS, NOT homosexual orientation, which one has no control over) and therefore cannot accept that homosexuality is a normal human behaviour (after all, what is the point of sex? why are we even capable of having it? Sex that CANNOT (rather than DOES NOT) end in reproduction is, biologically speaking, pointless - that is the whole raison d'etre of sexual desire - locically, homosexual desire CANNOT be natural).
As for SLFs post about homosexuality being rife in the animal kingdom - the pathetic self-justification line often trotted out by Stonewall - where is the evidence of this?? I've researched this and have never been able to find any.
My views do not constitute a 'hate-crime' and i would not hold a person's sexuality against them. What i object to is homosexuality being portrayed as normal, when it is not.
Taking a scan back through the thread, it seems that most people here are not homophobic (ie objecting to people BEING gay), they just object to the way gay people seem to conduct themselves (or allow themselves to be portrayed).
And like me, Scud, most people object strongly to being told how to think, or what opinions they may express. I reiterate what I said earlier -
neither you nor any other trendy liberal nazis like you will EVER succeed in telling me what to think or say.
...and by the way, your response to the 'molotov cocktail' banter was pathetic. Do you really honestly think that that was meant as a serious threat??????????
16 Blades
Assuming you are referring to the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 12 establishes the right to marry. Article 10 refers to Freedom of Expression and while it states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression" it also states that the exercise of this right:
"...carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others"
In other words you cannot necessarily express views that are 'unpopular or disturbing' (where did that quote come from?) if they are likely to incite violence, hatred etc..
IMO, there's a bit too much bile being put into this thread. I agree with you that in the main, most people care more about the professionalism of the person they work alongside than anything else. Perhaps on all sides we should be a little more relaxed about how this subject is discussed.
(And in the running table of "Most Stupid Senior Officer Decision of the Year", I don't think this one comes close - Hey, there's an idea for a thread!)
Assuming you are referring to the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 12 establishes the right to marry. Article 10 refers to Freedom of Expression and while it states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression" it also states that the exercise of this right:
"...carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others"
In other words you cannot necessarily express views that are 'unpopular or disturbing' (where did that quote come from?) if they are likely to incite violence, hatred etc..
IMO, there's a bit too much bile being put into this thread. I agree with you that in the main, most people care more about the professionalism of the person they work alongside than anything else. Perhaps on all sides we should be a little more relaxed about how this subject is discussed.
(And in the running table of "Most Stupid Senior Officer Decision of the Year", I don't think this one comes close - Hey, there's an idea for a thread!)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 Blades
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read my posts.
I've said all I have to say on the subject under discussion.
If you post contentious personal views on a public forum, expect them to be challenged. I do.
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read my posts.
I've said all I have to say on the subject under discussion.
If you post contentious personal views on a public forum, expect them to be challenged. I do.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RLE,
Sorry, quoted wrong article. The 'Unpopular or disturbing' quote was from a very professionally produced summary leaflet I obtained from my solicitor around the time the Act came into force. It seems the caveats that apply to the article give the Govt licence to stifle free speech if it considers what's being said to be 'off message'.....dangerous in my opinion. All of those caveats IMHO make the article pretty worthless if applied in such fashion. Shame we don't have a '1st amendment' right like our US cousins.
Also concur with your thread idea! Anyone brave enough to give a starter for 10................?
Scud,
I'd be disappointed if my views weren't challenged - I enjoy the debate! I hope I managed to air my views in a logical rather than dogmatic fashion - that was my intention, anyway. I am just sick of people like me being shot down for daring to air views that don't conform to the liberal elite's agenda-du-jour..............
16B
Sorry, quoted wrong article. The 'Unpopular or disturbing' quote was from a very professionally produced summary leaflet I obtained from my solicitor around the time the Act came into force. It seems the caveats that apply to the article give the Govt licence to stifle free speech if it considers what's being said to be 'off message'.....dangerous in my opinion. All of those caveats IMHO make the article pretty worthless if applied in such fashion. Shame we don't have a '1st amendment' right like our US cousins.
Also concur with your thread idea! Anyone brave enough to give a starter for 10................?
Scud,
I'd be disappointed if my views weren't challenged - I enjoy the debate! I hope I managed to air my views in a logical rather than dogmatic fashion - that was my intention, anyway. I am just sick of people like me being shot down for daring to air views that don't conform to the liberal elite's agenda-du-jour..............
16B
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can obviously tell from this thread that all have ever been in the RAF are those uneducated, no-where-else-to-go 16 year old kids who left school as soon as they could. It's low to throw basic insults I know, but that seems to be the only "language" you people understand.
It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal. Sexuality simply shouldn't be something that you judge people on.
I am lucky enough to have been brought up and live around people who base their judgements on more justifiable things than that.
I would have grown up extremely scared and alone in the type of world you all seem to have created here.
It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal. Sexuality simply shouldn't be something that you judge people on.
I am lucky enough to have been brought up and live around people who base their judgements on more justifiable things than that.
I would have grown up extremely scared and alone in the type of world you all seem to have created here.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am lucky enough to have been brought up and live around people who base their judgements on more justifiable things than that."
Such as?
"It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal."
What is normal to you is NOT normal to me. I think men having sex with men is not normal. My view, my opinion, and if you read my posts carefully you will find my attempt to justify this view. Whether you agree or disagree is entirely your choice, obviously.
You obviously were not taught any manners or the ability to make an objective and reasoned judgement, simply to throw rash sweeping insults. You have just proven the point of my last 2 posts - people like you attack any 'traditional' views that don't conform to your ideological view of society. We are all individuals, and are entitled to our individual opinions.
If you had started your post with 'I disagree with you for the following reasons........' or similar, people may have been willing to listen to your arguments. (If you had any).
16B
Such as?
"It is not "PC" to accept people for what they are, it is normal."
What is normal to you is NOT normal to me. I think men having sex with men is not normal. My view, my opinion, and if you read my posts carefully you will find my attempt to justify this view. Whether you agree or disagree is entirely your choice, obviously.
You obviously were not taught any manners or the ability to make an objective and reasoned judgement, simply to throw rash sweeping insults. You have just proven the point of my last 2 posts - people like you attack any 'traditional' views that don't conform to your ideological view of society. We are all individuals, and are entitled to our individual opinions.
If you had started your post with 'I disagree with you for the following reasons........' or similar, people may have been willing to listen to your arguments. (If you had any).
16B
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with being ideological?
My post wasn't directly aimed at you, in fact I hadn't read it - 7 pages of ignorant banter was enough for me so didn't bother with the 8th.
I also wasn't particularly saying it is normal to be gay, but that it should be normal to accept people for what they are without labelling it as being "PC".
You obviously came onto this thread to cause an argument, which is fine, but some opinions can really have a direct affect on others. There is no reason why someone should be made to feel ashamed of what they are, or how they feel just because you want to create some heated sharing of opinions.
That's all.
My post wasn't directly aimed at you, in fact I hadn't read it - 7 pages of ignorant banter was enough for me so didn't bother with the 8th.
I also wasn't particularly saying it is normal to be gay, but that it should be normal to accept people for what they are without labelling it as being "PC".
You obviously came onto this thread to cause an argument, which is fine, but some opinions can really have a direct affect on others. There is no reason why someone should be made to feel ashamed of what they are, or how they feel just because you want to create some heated sharing of opinions.
That's all.
