Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Gay Pride?

Old 7th Sep 2005, 18:38
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
A T

Sorry, if it was bait I'll bite but your statement of "the difference between a straight and a bi-curious man is 6 pints" is either wishful thinking or justification on your part.
Does this mean that you think it's worth trying it on in the later stages of happy hour, after all, by your definition, the bar is full of bi-curious men. Go on, you might get lucky.
Your comment gives an insight into your view of human sexuality. My heterosexual sexuality is a fundamental unshakeable part of me. It would appear that the roots of your homosexuality can be traced back to a few cans of Dry Blackthorn.
Flap62 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2005, 19:03
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,129
Red face

Flap62,

You really, really REALLY, are a bit of a joke.....................
pr00ne is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2005, 19:21
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
*******

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

I'm sure that our gay brothers would be offended if I suggested " ah it's all right, get a few pints down you and you'll fancy birds again"
Flap62 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2005, 19:32
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Hmmmm, I might take my chances in Edinburgh with AT in that Whisky treasure trove there though !!

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

I don't think I have ever been "bi-curious" in my life, but I have been pissed enough to regret my choice of female companion the next morning on quite a few occasions ! Luckily I never had to check under the sheets just in case though
Pilgrim101 is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2005, 20:55
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Land of the Rising Taxes
Posts: 128
My only comment re-iterates some that have been made before in that:

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

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

You cannot change an "ethos" overnight.

BTW Ethos is a word used by senior officers when they cannot rely on the troops being motivated anymore.
Stan Bydike is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 01:16
  #126 (permalink)  

I'matightbastard
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,746
One day, our Lords and Masters said that climbing out of a trench into the thick of a machine gun barrage armed only with a rifle was a requirement and that if you thought otherwise, your officers were allowed to shoot you.





[]

...and it was eight pints, not six

[/]
Onan the Clumsy is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 02:33
  #127 (permalink)  

Short Blunt Shock
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Glad to see this back. It would have been sad had it been confined to the politically-correct lead-lined vault!

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

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

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

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

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

16B

Last edited by 16 blades; 8th Sep 2005 at 03:13.
16 blades is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 03:38
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 50
Posts: 136
16B

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

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

They [kids] need the influence of both sexes in this to develop a balanced view of the world around them
Single parent families?
"Almost one in four children in England and Wales now lives in a one-parent family, the latest data from the 2001 Census has revealed."
BBC

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

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

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

Last edited by FishHead; 8th Sep 2005 at 03:51.
FishHead is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 07:50
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
16B

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

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

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

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

I think this thread has run its course - we're never going to agree, and if it carries on it's going to become more and more tedious. I suggest we have it locked and keep it on the boards for posterity.
tablet_eraser is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 08:11
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
t_e

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


Nice technique to have the last word ??

My last point - Indulgence in "Happy Families" in the service, by definition heterosexual in the main, had/has a far greater impact on individual morale and collective attitude than the private homosexual domain - argumentative or what ? I think the objectors on this thread are quite right that they don't need to be slapped in the face with someone's sexuality as a qualification, or even a mitigating circumstance, in how they operate professionally ( God, it was difficult to avoid saying "performance on the job" there !)
Pilgrim101 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 09:19
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
16B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't give a toss whether anyone approves or disapproves of gay people. All I ask is that you don't fixate on that one (professionally irrelevant) part of our make-up. Look beyond it and you might find some good friends and sound people.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 13:02
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,254
AT.....

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

The difference is the ones that want to rub it in our faces....poor choice of words....but you understand my meaning. Get on about your life and work....discretely....and everyone is happy....exactly as for a "straight" person. There are some aspects of a person's life I just do not care to know all about thank you. That goes for both straight and gay.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 13:24
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
SASless,
you say,

if I never know that you are gay....then absolutely spot on
What happens then if you do?
Flap62 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 14:48
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Good Lord! An insightful, intelligent, pithy contribution from Flap62. We are making progress.

I think I will wait for SASless' answer to that before responding to his question to me.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 15:59
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northants
Posts: 692
A T

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

(Tongue firmly in cheek!)
Flap62 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 16:55
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
This is too much: Nascent wit as well?

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

That said, I complement you on your knowledge of contemporary popular 'gay' culture! I can't abide either programme myself!
An Teallach is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 17:22
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,254
Flaps62...

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

Be yourself, be discrete, and be professional...that is all I ask of anyone. Start your preaching...swishing....or barracks talk in a polite or professional conversation or set of circumstances and I think far less of you personally. Bad manners are just bad manners.
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 18:06
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 31
After 9 pages of 'Gay this' and 'Hetero that' it's time I said my small piece and it's with regards to 'natural'.

Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.

I thank you and goodnight.
dirtygc is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 18:14
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
I think we agree, SASless. At least in part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, SASless is why it is important that people can be 'out', honest and open. Otherwise, the road from hate-filled posts on a message board, to queerhunts and sackings, through beatings, on past imprisonment and right on down the road to hanging teenage laddies can be a very short road indeed.
An Teallach is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2005, 18:59
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 145
As long as people fly, fight and follow orders does it matter who or what they are? I think not. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to belong to the wrong generation by about three or four levels.

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

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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.