Gay Pride?

[ihoharv]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[proud2serve]

Are there REALLY 20 000 gay regular service personnel

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

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

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

[16 blades]

The simplest way to look at sexuality is as a spectrum

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

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

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

16B

[ORAC]

You seem to have a penchant for and extraordinary belief in the pronouncements of fundamentalist Christian organisations. Concerned Women for America. Might I suggest they have an agenda?

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

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

[Hilife]

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

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

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

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

[tablet_eraser]

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

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

[An Teallach]

And still they come, like moths to a flame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maple 01]

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

I wish!

[An Teallach]

Good one, Maple!

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

[Maple 01]

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

[An Teallach]

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

[opso]

...I also think the kind of gay chaps (Shock Horror: We’re not all the same) that will be attracted to a Service career are not the ones cavorting through Manchester in jockstraps and fairy wings.

And that is my main concern with the attendence at the Gay Pride event. It was nothing more than a political stunt to show how inclusive the military is and would have achieved little in the way of recruiting people - given how stretched the military is, why are we wasting time and resources?

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

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

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

[ORAC]

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

Exactly.

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

[An Teallach]

Opso

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roll on curry and pub time!

[16 blades]

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

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

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

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

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

quoting and espousing the views of these fundamentalist groups

no more links to f’tang f’tang biscuit-barrel wing-ding American God-botherers. They are rather boring.

Yes, how dare I post a link to something that offers an alternative point of view. Since you seem to have a problem with people whos values are based on genuine, deep-rooted and honest beliefs, I will offer this link instead, which appears to have nothing to do with christian 'fundamentalism'. An extract:

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

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

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

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

And this is the man who's values and 'research' you espouse? You say that CWA have an agenda - do you not think that Kinsey had his OWN agenda?

I know who I would rather believe

So do I, ORAC, so do I.

An Teallach,

If he or she is any good at his / her job, should he / she be fired?

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

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

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

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

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

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

16B

[An Teallach]

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

[ORAC]

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

Oh, because of things like this..

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

and this.
Secular Humanism faces a New Attack

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

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

That's why I call them fundamentalist.

[Hilife]

An Teallach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maple 01]

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

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

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

Ah well, perhaps after another few pints?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An Teallach]

Maple 01

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

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

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

Cx your PMs