Gay Pride?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to many studies of group hierarchies within the animal kingdom its quite common and therefore ‘normal’.
Besides, I wouldn't call less than 5% "quite common".
16B
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, National Geographic is also part of the evil gay conspiracy for world domination.
National Geographic
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.
Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.
National Geographic
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.
Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 5th Sep 2005 at 22:47.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the old 'Gay Animals' argument.
Almost all cited examples of alleged 'gay' animals end up referring back to Bruce Bagemihl, author of "Biological Exuberance" - try reading this book, or reviews or a precis of it, and you will see it is pseudo-science at best (a view shared by many biologists who are not fettered by political correctness or a hidden personal agenda). Bagemihl himself is gay, and an activist (so hardly impartial), but most incredibly, his book aims not just to further the cause of the gay rights lobby, but goes on to refute darwinism (almost universally accepted) and attack the importance of heterosexual reproduction! Never mind the fact that ALL living organisms (bar monocellular ones) are the product of a heterosexual act (even 'gay' organisms!). He claims to have documented over 450 examples of animal 'homosexuality' - yet offers no evidence other than his own testimony. He also dismisses alternative explanations - one of which can be read here.
Even if animals are, in fact, 'turning queer', this does not mean that this is a 'natural' phenomenon. There is an increasing body of evidence, including experiments that can be reproduced in a lab (as opposed to the possibly biased claims of 1 individual), that the situation is very much man made. See an example here, here, and even HERE! Also worth considering are the possible effects of the sheer volume of oestrogen and similar female hormones that have been, literally, pissed into our water table over the last 40 or so years, since use of the contraceptive pill became widespread - read about it here.
My belief that homosexuality is not a 'natural' phenomenon is NOT based on prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, nor any other label the gay rights lobby would throw at me for challenging their almighty assumptions. It is based on a large body of scientific evidence.
As you so succinctly put it, Scud-U-Like, you can either
16B
Almost all cited examples of alleged 'gay' animals end up referring back to Bruce Bagemihl, author of "Biological Exuberance" - try reading this book, or reviews or a precis of it, and you will see it is pseudo-science at best (a view shared by many biologists who are not fettered by political correctness or a hidden personal agenda). Bagemihl himself is gay, and an activist (so hardly impartial), but most incredibly, his book aims not just to further the cause of the gay rights lobby, but goes on to refute darwinism (almost universally accepted) and attack the importance of heterosexual reproduction! Never mind the fact that ALL living organisms (bar monocellular ones) are the product of a heterosexual act (even 'gay' organisms!). He claims to have documented over 450 examples of animal 'homosexuality' - yet offers no evidence other than his own testimony. He also dismisses alternative explanations - one of which can be read here.
Even if animals are, in fact, 'turning queer', this does not mean that this is a 'natural' phenomenon. There is an increasing body of evidence, including experiments that can be reproduced in a lab (as opposed to the possibly biased claims of 1 individual), that the situation is very much man made. See an example here, here, and even HERE! Also worth considering are the possible effects of the sheer volume of oestrogen and similar female hormones that have been, literally, pissed into our water table over the last 40 or so years, since use of the contraceptive pill became widespread - read about it here.
My belief that homosexuality is not a 'natural' phenomenon is NOT based on prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, nor any other label the gay rights lobby would throw at me for challenging their almighty assumptions. It is based on a large body of scientific evidence.
As you so succinctly put it, Scud-U-Like, you can either
like it or lump it, I'm afraid
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Gender is not sexuality. Sexuality is determined during, and shortly after, the 6th week of gestation and is a result of the presence of testosterone as the testes start to develop. This determines the neural pattern laid down, late or low development produces a more female brain. Oestrogen is not a factor, as mammals we gestate surrounded by our mother´s hormones and a high level of oestrogen is always present.
If one accepts that the level of oestrogen in the environment can affect sexuality, one would believe that there should be a clear correlation between the two which varies world-wide as the level varies. I have seen no such evidence. Based on such a hypothesis, one also presumes there should have been a concurrent and equal reduction on the occurence of lesbianism.
And there is no point setting up an aunt sally so you can knock it down, perhaps you might be better addressing the article cited by Scud-U-Like?
I did a bit of digging on your references. The result concerning the second, NARTH, is most interesting. They are a fundamentalist Christian group supporting "Reparative therapy" and believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and can be cured, see here a rebuttal of their position by an ex member and here by the Presbyterians.
I would hesiate to take their word as a scientific source, but even if you did - their position is in direct contradiction to your theory. Which is it to be, lifestyle or pollution? Or is it either as long as it is anti-homosexual?
If one accepts that the level of oestrogen in the environment can affect sexuality, one would believe that there should be a clear correlation between the two which varies world-wide as the level varies. I have seen no such evidence. Based on such a hypothesis, one also presumes there should have been a concurrent and equal reduction on the occurence of lesbianism.
And there is no point setting up an aunt sally so you can knock it down, perhaps you might be better addressing the article cited by Scud-U-Like?
I did a bit of digging on your references. The result concerning the second, NARTH, is most interesting. They are a fundamentalist Christian group supporting "Reparative therapy" and believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and can be cured, see here a rebuttal of their position by an ex member and here by the Presbyterians.
I would hesiate to take their word as a scientific source, but even if you did - their position is in direct contradiction to your theory. Which is it to be, lifestyle or pollution? Or is it either as long as it is anti-homosexual?
Last edited by ORAC; 6th Sep 2005 at 06:50.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm awfully sorry, 16B, but I don't see how any of the articles you've shown indicate that homosexuality is unnatural.
Article 1: Truthout
Doesn't explain why homosexuality existed BEFORE exposure to DDT. DDT is a modern chemical, so how does this explain homosexuality prior to human exposure to such chemicals? You've also made the disingenuous argument of linking human and animal sexuality when there are clear and undeniable differences between the two, especially in terms of reproduction. The male western gulls referred to in this article are more likely to be affected by DDTs because they are born to an avian reproductive system which has more chance of disruption than a mammalian reproductive system. Once an egg is fertilised in a bird, it is on its own; no placenta to remove any nasty chamicals. What goes in the albumen stays in it.
Article 2: New Evidence for Biological Influence on Gender
This is a badly-put argument. Sexuality and masculinity are very distinct. I am NOT effeminate. Masculine gender identity? What the hell is that? Methinks the journalist is not familiar with the differences between sex, gender, and sexuality, and feels he can fudge the three of them to make his point stand. And, again, there is no explanation for how homosexuality can have existed before humans were exposed to environmental toxins.
He then goes on to list conditions associated with left-handedness. Well, I don't hear anybody claiming that left-handedness is abnormal or even abhorrent. This pseudo-scientific organisation does not note that we stopped trying to "cure" left-handedness in the 1800s because it is impossible.
Additionally, the author has failed to note the growing belief in a genetic case for homosexuality. The later claim of higher pathology among homosexuals does not take into account the fact that the society in which the study took place (USA) has greater social difficulty with accepting homosexuality. In a society where you're constantly told, succintly or overtly, that being gay is evil, I'm hardly surprised that some gay folks develop pathological diffculties. I suspect that Canada, a mere border crossing away, would have a lower rate of pathology. Whose fault? No-one's. Different societies evolve in different ways.
Article 3: BBC News Website, 10 July 2004, Pollution 'changes sex of fish'
I am not a fish. I am a man. This article has nothing to do with sexuality.
You will NOT convince me that my sexuality is an unnatural any more than you will convince me that left-handedness is unnatural. Even the gay-hating NARTH organisation says in its article that it believes homosexuality occurs due to biological and immunological changes. Ergo, it happens - gasp - naturally. And since Plato, Edward II, James I of England, Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing - among other luminaries - were homosexuals BEFORE any of your chemical arguments applied, I do not see how you can prove your case at all.
Article 1: Truthout
Researchers have also shown that increasing numbers of male western gulls hatched from eggs exposed to DDT attempt to mate with each other.
Article 2: New Evidence for Biological Influence on Gender
... then a boy with a brain that had been feminized in utero by an environmental toxin such as atrazine would be at particular risk to establish a weak masculine gender identity and thus to develop homosexual attractions in adulthood.
That earlier study concluded that male homosexuals are about one-third (31%) more likely than heterosexuals to be left-handed, while lesbians are almost twice as likely (91%) to be left-handed as heterosexual women. LaLumiere believes this indicates that homosexuality ... has a neuro-developmental basis tracing back to "disruptive events causing developmental instability" which have modified sexual differentiation of the brain, "perhaps through hormonal or immunological mechanisms." Homosexuality is generally understood to result from a combination of psychological, biological, and social factors. In those homosexuals whose condition had a primarily biological rather than a psycho-social foundation, homosexuality would be, like left-handedness, a "biological developmental error."
Additionally, the author has failed to note the growing belief in a genetic case for homosexuality. The later claim of higher pathology among homosexuals does not take into account the fact that the society in which the study took place (USA) has greater social difficulty with accepting homosexuality. In a society where you're constantly told, succintly or overtly, that being gay is evil, I'm hardly surprised that some gay folks develop pathological diffculties. I suspect that Canada, a mere border crossing away, would have a lower rate of pathology. Whose fault? No-one's. Different societies evolve in different ways.
Article 3: BBC News Website, 10 July 2004, Pollution 'changes sex of fish'
I am not a fish. I am a man. This article has nothing to do with sexuality.
You will NOT convince me that my sexuality is an unnatural any more than you will convince me that left-handedness is unnatural. Even the gay-hating NARTH organisation says in its article that it believes homosexuality occurs due to biological and immunological changes. Ergo, it happens - gasp - naturally. And since Plato, Edward II, James I of England, Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing - among other luminaries - were homosexuals BEFORE any of your chemical arguments applied, I do not see how you can prove your case at all.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left handed unnatural?
I been Norman Mailered, Maxwell Taylored.
I been John O’Hara’d, McNamara’d.
I been Rolling Stoned and Beatled till I’m blind.
I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
communist, ’cause I’m left-handed.
That’s the hand they use, well ... never mind!
I am told that the incidence of left-handedness among helicopter pilots is about twice that in the general population.
Are we to believe that helicopter pilots are not normal?
Oops, I think I see a flaw here ...
(takes cover)
I been John O’Hara’d, McNamara’d.
I been Rolling Stoned and Beatled till I’m blind.
I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
communist, ’cause I’m left-handed.
That’s the hand they use, well ... never mind!
I am told that the incidence of left-handedness among helicopter pilots is about twice that in the general population.
Are we to believe that helicopter pilots are not normal?
Oops, I think I see a flaw here ...
(takes cover)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t_e
Eloquently put ! I see you don't need any help from us "normal" people to articulate your disdain for the chemical/brainwave/social conditioning solution and explanations for any "aberrant" behaviour of any human being.
I do confess to being concerned about the amount of Oestrogen being recycled into our water supplies since the introduction of the pill etc but, until I too end up dancing naked down the streets of Manchester (or Glasgow) with a carnation in my mouth then I will have to acknowledge that drinking Laphroaig neat is an acceptable compromise !
Eloquently put ! I see you don't need any help from us "normal" people to articulate your disdain for the chemical/brainwave/social conditioning solution and explanations for any "aberrant" behaviour of any human being.
I do confess to being concerned about the amount of Oestrogen being recycled into our water supplies since the introduction of the pill etc but, until I too end up dancing naked down the streets of Manchester (or Glasgow) with a carnation in my mouth then I will have to acknowledge that drinking Laphroaig neat is an acceptable compromise !
I suppose you drink it with your left hand too....
Nature or nurture?
T_e et al, can you explain why homosexuallity is often accompanied by affected camp behaviour? Why do homosexual males often "put on" the manner of speach and hand gestures that have led to parodies in the media etc. Why do many in the gay community on a gay pride march wear the badges of their sexuality (vest tops, tight shorts etc).
I am not saying that all gay people behave like this but having flown in the airline world I have probably spoken to more gay men than the homosexual contributors to this forum. I have also had the "priveledge" of watching the largest gay pride march in the world and can attest to the stereotypical dress sense.
So are you saying that many people who are born gay are also somehow driven to say "oh! look at him" in full Larry Grayson mode by some biological blueprint? Does your genetic makeup also give you a penchant for cut off denims and dodgy caps?
T_e et al, can you explain why homosexuallity is often accompanied by affected camp behaviour? Why do homosexual males often "put on" the manner of speach and hand gestures that have led to parodies in the media etc. Why do many in the gay community on a gay pride march wear the badges of their sexuality (vest tops, tight shorts etc).
I am not saying that all gay people behave like this but having flown in the airline world I have probably spoken to more gay men than the homosexual contributors to this forum. I have also had the "priveledge" of watching the largest gay pride march in the world and can attest to the stereotypical dress sense.
So are you saying that many people who are born gay are also somehow driven to say "oh! look at him" in full Larry Grayson mode by some biological blueprint? Does your genetic makeup also give you a penchant for cut off denims and dodgy caps?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful, Pilgrim!
I've already coughed that a penchant for fine Islay Malt hasn't "cured" me.
Jings! Maybe it was all those phenolics, peats, seaweeds, smoke and tannins that made me a poofter? If the difference between a straight man and a bi-curious man is 6 pints, maybe 20 years of Islay Malt has made me gay?
Gosh, thanks PPruNe, I'm saved! I'm a chemically adjusted closet heterosexual!
Lay off the Leapfrog right now Pilgrim, lest we end up skipping hand-in-hand down Sauchiehall Street; Jockstraps, fairy wings, carnations and all!
Maybe if I lay off the Lagavulin, nip over to the States and give some preened "Show me the Greenbacks for the Lord!" P.T. Barnum-style preacher $2,000 to tie electrodes to my nuts, I'll come back "normal"!
Halleluja Brother!
Flaps.
Camp is an affectation some folk feel they have to put on. Camp effeminacy is not necessarily an indication of homosexuality. I have a friend who was orphaned and brought up by 2 maiden Aunts.
He comes across as being as camp as a row of pink fluffy wigwams with glitter balls. He is, however, entirely straight.
I've already coughed that a penchant for fine Islay Malt hasn't "cured" me.
Jings! Maybe it was all those phenolics, peats, seaweeds, smoke and tannins that made me a poofter? If the difference between a straight man and a bi-curious man is 6 pints, maybe 20 years of Islay Malt has made me gay?
Gosh, thanks PPruNe, I'm saved! I'm a chemically adjusted closet heterosexual!
Lay off the Leapfrog right now Pilgrim, lest we end up skipping hand-in-hand down Sauchiehall Street; Jockstraps, fairy wings, carnations and all!
Maybe if I lay off the Lagavulin, nip over to the States and give some preened "Show me the Greenbacks for the Lord!" P.T. Barnum-style preacher $2,000 to tie electrodes to my nuts, I'll come back "normal"!
Halleluja Brother!
Flaps.
Camp is an affectation some folk feel they have to put on. Camp effeminacy is not necessarily an indication of homosexuality. I have a friend who was orphaned and brought up by 2 maiden Aunts.
He comes across as being as camp as a row of pink fluffy wigwams with glitter balls. He is, however, entirely straight.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud
"""" Laphroaig NEAT! I suppose you drink it with your left hand too.... """""
I have to use both hands !
They shake a lot now though !!
AT
I think attaching electrodes to ones nuts would result in a Charles Hawtreyesque type of existence thereafter ?? Talk about stereotyping !
I also believe that the attraction of the theatre/glitzy showbiz, airline cabin crew and all the other effeminate, in your face preening homosexuality industries is the non judgemental acceptance that it is a fact of life and the rest of us are quite happy to see it contained in a nice, pigeon holed box which offers no threat. As a former West of Scotland homophobe I am well qualified to refer to the prejudice which has done so much harm and hurt to so many amazing people and to recant without reservation. What I do in the bedroom and what anyone else does in the bedroom (or some very other interesting public places my girlfriend and I have broken other laws in ) is nobody else's business.
The problem is to break down those barriers without alienating those with more "normal" sexual proclivities by slapping them in the face with minority "demands" and activist bull**** like the cruel "outing" campaign indulged in by that wa
r Tatchell and his fascist poof squad. Perhaps the gay community should hire Peter Mandelson to put some spin on their presentation from now on ?
"""" Laphroaig NEAT! I suppose you drink it with your left hand too.... """""
I have to use both hands !
They shake a lot now though !!AT
I think attaching electrodes to ones nuts would result in a Charles Hawtreyesque type of existence thereafter ?? Talk about stereotyping !
I also believe that the attraction of the theatre/glitzy showbiz, airline cabin crew and all the other effeminate, in your face preening homosexuality industries is the non judgemental acceptance that it is a fact of life and the rest of us are quite happy to see it contained in a nice, pigeon holed box which offers no threat. As a former West of Scotland homophobe I am well qualified to refer to the prejudice which has done so much harm and hurt to so many amazing people and to recant without reservation. What I do in the bedroom and what anyone else does in the bedroom (or some very other interesting public places my girlfriend and I have broken other laws in
) is nobody else's business.The problem is to break down those barriers without alienating those with more "normal" sexual proclivities by slapping them in the face with minority "demands" and activist bull**** like the cruel "outing" campaign indulged in by that wa
r Tatchell and his fascist poof squad. Perhaps the gay community should hire Peter Mandelson to put some spin on their presentation from now on ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello all, I've read this thread with great interest and finally been moved to join in. This is a long post but hopefully you'll find it interesting.
DA-DT-DH doesn't help anyone. It discourages people from playing their full role in the service community and your personal preferences aside, it prevents the individuals enjoying the company of their partners in the workplace social setting. Like An Teallach says, it means you have to force well adjusted people into the shadows of embittered closeting - and that leaves people open for threats, blackmail and always watching their backs .. not exactly great for teamwork eh.
"Marmite drilling" is quite clearly not just the bag of gay men. I know it is a fantasy / reality for many of my str8 m8s, otherwise
1. They wouldn't keep banging on about wanting to take their girlfriends / wives / casual shags up the catflap
2. There wouldn't be such a roaring trade in straight back door porn - online, print and videos.
Your personal 'preferences' aside that fact remains undisputable.
Segregation of any service personnel into separate units is hardly the route to integration - apartheid of the sexes, races, sexual orientation - hmmm. Haven't we had that before somewhere in the last century? And how are you going to separate out the majority of lesbian/gay personnel who choose to keep their sexuality an extremely private matter in their workplace? Simply put, you are not. Furthermore, if you can somehow manage to get apartheid oops segregation to work in peacetime, how are you going to do it on ops, with personnel for each force package selected from across units as required?
16 blades - I've read your posts with interest. I wholeheartedly agree with your thought that what is important is whether ANY individual serviceman can do his job to the standard that is required - that is what is important in an organisation which works and lives together. However I want to respond to a couple of your points.
1. This is an interesting point. I detest censorship same as right-thinking Western liberal. However, I'd be interested for some guidance as to how far the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct governs current service and reserve personnel and their public pronouncements when out of uniform, and online.
2a. Holding "traditional" views for a long time does not necessarily make them right (eg, burning of heretics, persecution of the Jews, not giving women the vote etc).
2b. I am no devil but let's just consider the minority to which you refer in this post. On HM Government's estimate you are talking about 7% of the working population. Some might even put it as high as 10%. This is not tiny - it is anything up to 20 000 currently serving personnel in the regular forces. I agree that there is a group of highly vocal campaigners and they may not be the cup of tea of all my gay co-servicemen, but please try to see past that vocalness to the colleagues and friends that you MUST already know and can relate to. Equating the media image of Gay Pride with all gays is like equating the worst yob on the football terraces conducting section attacks with the mild-mannered father taking his son to a game at his local club.
3. In that case neither is sticking your nob up a woman's arse but that doesn't seem to stop most heteros.
4. ... which is why it is working so well in contemporary society. Are you sure marriage isn't a construct of the church to aid social control and try to prevent STI spreading through sexual promiscuity? That's a whole other discussion.
5. Why isn't it? What evidence do you base this on?
6. I agree we should all get on with doing our jobs, straight or gay, and be judged on that. However, whether your tolerance of people banging on is exhausted or not, the powers that be will continue to *require* you to be tolerant.
Me too!. I haven't yet had a colleague, friend or otherwise, tell me how "wrong" everything was or have a go. Well, except for the girls who still think it is such a waste (or maybe it was "what a waist"?).
Please don't assume that everyone who is gay and in HM Armed Forces wants to march in uniform in Gay Pride, or even see the recruiters (who are not necessarily gay and simply be on duty) man a float. However, I do believe there is a place for each of the Services to have a presence at events with such a high profile in the gay community at least once, in order to demonstrate that we in the forces are committed to equal opportunities for all and that sexual orientation, like race and gender, are quite simply not an issue. I would be quite surprised if RN, Army and RAF were all to have such high-profile reporting were they to be involved next year again. Of course, that might depend on whether the diversity teams actually asked serving gay (and straight) personnel what *they* thought about it. What about the Royal Marines float though ...
As far as I am aware, the appearances by RN, Army and RAF at the various parades have been officially organised and officially sanctioned. They were arranged by the recruitment or diversity policy teams of the respective single services and were not specifically staffed by gay personnel. That was the point of the official armed forces presence - diversity and recruitment. How many people not part of the official team actually turned up on their own, in uniform?
1. The culture of the Services is by definition macho and long may that continue. Please tell me that you are not for a moment suggesting that is has to be hetero to be macho - you would be doing many of your colleagues an immense disservice.
2. The point about banter is not whether it is intentionally homophobic, it is whether it is perceived by the bantered as being offensive, threatening, unwelcome or [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ist/ [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ic. That's what military regs have to say. I suppose this does affect all of us as we then have to be doubly aware of what we are saying, intended in jest or otherwise.
Languages are living and develop as usage changes. We get new words like chav, bling, Bluetooth; old words go out of use and other words develop new meanings like wireless or gay. You are not telling me you would rather be speaking like an Elizabethan actor in Shakespearean English? Thankfully, Nigger these days is just a poor little doggy buried at RAF Scampton - or shall we roll back that linguistic change as well?
Phew, I know that's quite a long post but you guys have all had so much to say and reply to. On a parting note, 16 blades said that the PC brigade have browbeaten most people into silence by crying 'homophobe!' anytime anybody questions the agenda of activists and mouthpieces. I acknowledge there is a risk that ANY debate on any mildly contentious subject can be shouted out. I think this has - largely - been avoided in this thread. Knee-jerk reactions and any attempt to silence - reasoned, balanced, mature - debate aren't helpful to anyone. Fair and frank exchange is. After all, it's all about giving and taking
BAagle: What they do by mutual consent and it's none of anyone else's business. Which is infinitely preferable to the bullying and witchhunting which used to go on before Pink Wednesday came about, in my view. However, wasn't the "Don't ask - don't tell" philosophy of another country's armed forces rather simpler and easier for all to accept?"
Leon Jabachjabicz: Marmite drilling is not my bag...that IS my choice. Also as a hetero I have always employed the motto of "Why use the taxiway when the runway is perfectly serviceable?"
1. They wouldn't keep banging on about wanting to take their girlfriends / wives / casual shags up the catflap
2. There wouldn't be such a roaring trade in straight back door porn - online, print and videos.
Your personal 'preferences' aside that fact remains undisputable.
Flatus Veteranus: It is nonsense to expect servicemen to make a crash change of attitude to appease the PC liberals. A gradual integration would be the best way forward - perhaps with units "manned (?)" exclusively by gays.
16 blades - I've read your posts with interest. I wholeheartedly agree with your thought that what is important is whether ANY individual serviceman can do his job to the standard that is required - that is what is important in an organisation which works and lives together. However I want to respond to a couple of your points.
16 BLADES 1. I will speak as I feel. I am legally entitled to do so - [It is] my legal right to hold and express those views (Article 12, Human Rights Act ) - so why do you try to dissuade us from doing so?
2. explain why the vast majority who have held these traditional views for so long should be made to throw them out of the window overnight to appease a tiny, but highly vocal, minority?
3. Sex exists because we have a need to reproduce. One cannot reproduce by shoving one's nob up another bloke's arse, to put it bluntly. It is therefore not natural.
4. Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children.
5. A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment.
6. I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Just get on with your jobs and give the politics a rest, eh? The more you bang on about how 'hard done to' you consider yourselves, the more people like me will find their tolerance being exhausted.
2. explain why the vast majority who have held these traditional views for so long should be made to throw them out of the window overnight to appease a tiny, but highly vocal, minority?
3. Sex exists because we have a need to reproduce. One cannot reproduce by shoving one's nob up another bloke's arse, to put it bluntly. It is therefore not natural.
4. Neither is it 'equivalent' to a marriage, for the same reason - marriage exists to provide a stable and balanced environment in which to raise children.
5. A same-sex relationship is not a balanced environment.
6. I have no problem with gays serving in the military. Just get on with your jobs and give the politics a rest, eh? The more you bang on about how 'hard done to' you consider yourselves, the more people like me will find their tolerance being exhausted.
2a. Holding "traditional" views for a long time does not necessarily make them right (eg, burning of heretics, persecution of the Jews, not giving women the vote etc).
2b. I am no devil but let's just consider the minority to which you refer in this post. On HM Government's estimate you are talking about 7% of the working population. Some might even put it as high as 10%. This is not tiny - it is anything up to 20 000 currently serving personnel in the regular forces. I agree that there is a group of highly vocal campaigners and they may not be the cup of tea of all my gay co-servicemen, but please try to see past that vocalness to the colleagues and friends that you MUST already know and can relate to. Equating the media image of Gay Pride with all gays is like equating the worst yob on the football terraces conducting section attacks with the mild-mannered father taking his son to a game at his local club.
3. In that case neither is sticking your nob up a woman's arse but that doesn't seem to stop most heteros.
4. ... which is why it is working so well in contemporary society. Are you sure marriage isn't a construct of the church to aid social control and try to prevent STI spreading through sexual promiscuity? That's a whole other discussion.
5. Why isn't it? What evidence do you base this on?
6. I agree we should all get on with doing our jobs, straight or gay, and be judged on that. However, whether your tolerance of people banging on is exhausted or not, the powers that be will continue to *require* you to be tolerant.
Tablet_eraser: Thank God I work with people who defend their friends and colleagues.
Training Risky: What I (and I expect many others - gay and straight) have a problem with is the constant parading of UK military homosexuals in Gay Pride, gay magazines and other publicity-grabbing events in order to 'prove' to the nation how much the military has changed since the bad old days.
Sloppy Link, "If I were to organise a xxxxing pride march for the hetrosexual public, would members of the armed forces be allowed to attend? In uniform?"
Flatus Veteranus: "Gays who join the armed services and perform their duties well should be respected. But they should not parade their proclivities. The culture of the Services is strongly macho-hetero and this cannot be turned around quickly. Banter about gays is not necessarily homohobic.
2. The point about banter is not whether it is intentionally homophobic, it is whether it is perceived by the bantered as being offensive, threatening, unwelcome or [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ist/ [insert your choice of prejuduce]-ic. That's what military regs have to say. I suppose this does affect all of us as we then have to be doubly aware of what we are saying, intended in jest or otherwise.
The burning bush: "Gay means carefree, mirthful, happy etc.......or least it used to"
Phew, I know that's quite a long post but you guys have all had so much to say and reply to. On a parting note, 16 blades said that the PC brigade have browbeaten most people into silence by crying 'homophobe!' anytime anybody questions the agenda of activists and mouthpieces. I acknowledge there is a risk that ANY debate on any mildly contentious subject can be shouted out. I think this has - largely - been avoided in this thread. Knee-jerk reactions and any attempt to silence - reasoned, balanced, mature - debate aren't helpful to anyone. Fair and frank exchange is. After all, it's all about giving and taking
Maybe if I lay off the Lagavulin, nip over to the States and give some preened "Show me the Greenbacks for the Lord!" P.T. Barnum-style preacher $2,000 ......."
It never ceases to amaze me how such charletans can be permitted to extort such sums from the gullible in a so-called civilised country.
But I did like the movie 'Fletch lives' in which Chevy Chase rips the pi$$ out of not only the Ku Klux Klan, but also predatory god-botherers such as you describe!
It never ceases to amaze me how such charletans can be permitted to extort such sums from the gullible in a so-called civilised country.
But I did like the movie 'Fletch lives' in which Chevy Chase rips the pi$$ out of not only the Ku Klux Klan, but also predatory god-botherers such as you describe!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilgrim
Cheers mate. After more internet research, I find that the effect of going through NARTH-type 'therapy' and giving up Lagavulin would be:
1. No more Lagavulin.
2. I would remain gay.
3. I would acquire a SM-style penchant for having electrodes tied to my nuts!
As the thought of the whole SM thing has never floated my boat, I think I'll stay the way I am!
I agree on the Tatchell thing, though like many of the more right-wing chaps (it appears Tatchell is now the darling of the Telegraph set), I had to revise my attitude to the whole 'outing' business after I found that, under the old regime, some of the keenest persecutors of gay chaps in the Service were the closet queens.
Thankfully, now, that is not an issue and no-one should feel the need to point the finger at anyone else's peccadilloes.
Beags
I think we're seeing in Louisiana at the moment quite how thin that veneer of civilization actually is.
For a nation in the grip of an alleged 'revival', I don't see many of the Crystal Cathedral type Multi-Million $ Mammon-Preachers showing or mobilising much Christian charity. God forbid that they should sell off their fleets of limousines to buy food for people in desperate need.
Cheers mate. After more internet research, I find that the effect of going through NARTH-type 'therapy' and giving up Lagavulin would be:
1. No more Lagavulin.
2. I would remain gay.
3. I would acquire a SM-style penchant for having electrodes tied to my nuts!
As the thought of the whole SM thing has never floated my boat, I think I'll stay the way I am!
I agree on the Tatchell thing, though like many of the more right-wing chaps (it appears Tatchell is now the darling of the Telegraph set), I had to revise my attitude to the whole 'outing' business after I found that, under the old regime, some of the keenest persecutors of gay chaps in the Service were the closet queens.
Thankfully, now, that is not an issue and no-one should feel the need to point the finger at anyone else's peccadilloes.
Beags
I think we're seeing in Louisiana at the moment quite how thin that veneer of civilization actually is.
For a nation in the grip of an alleged 'revival', I don't see many of the Crystal Cathedral type Multi-Million $ Mammon-Preachers showing or mobilising much Christian charity. God forbid that they should sell off their fleets of limousines to buy food for people in desperate need.
Last edited by An Teallach; 6th Sep 2005 at 12:47.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would happily work with you, and I genuinely don't care what you do with yourself in your own time.
The problem with this view is that to be a leader - to care about your staff/troops/men/women whom work for you - you have to care what people do in their own time in order to effectively motivate them to work for you, and in order to help when problems arise that infringe upon the working world as they do for all of us (e.g. childbirth).
I believe the largest change for many of you older chaps is to realise not that it matters that people can do the job - since they will - but rather that people of all creeds must be included socially to happily work together.
If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet.
I don't think it is ever right to know what goes on in one's bedroom however. If you want to know, Google some porn.
Guest
Posts: n/a
nails' heads duly hit
Re-Heat,
I think that pretty much sums things up. You have hit the nail on the head. This is probably the question people should ask themselves alongside the Service test (ie "Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?")
If you can't ask yourself the 'boyfriend' question then I do not think you have a right to make a fair assessment
Re-Heat said "If you are not prepared to ask the question - how is your boyfriend - you have come no further than when it was all in the closet."
If you can't ask yourself the 'boyfriend' question then I do not think you have a right to make a fair assessment
In assessing whether to take action, Commanding Officers will consider a series of key criteria. This will establish the seriousness of the misconduct and its impact on operational effectiveness and thus the appropriate and proportionate level of sanction.
A message for bigots (as opposed to those who just indulge in harmless banter):
On 6 Sep 1941, yellow Star of David badges became compulsory for all Jewish citizens in Nazi Germany
On 6 Sep 1966, Hendrick Verwoerd, architect of South Africa's apartheid policy, was assassinated.
It is now 6 Sep 2005. Time for bigots to grow up and shut up - and perhaps for this thread to close?
On 6 Sep 1941, yellow Star of David badges became compulsory for all Jewish citizens in Nazi Germany
On 6 Sep 1966, Hendrick Verwoerd, architect of South Africa's apartheid policy, was assassinated.
It is now 6 Sep 2005. Time for bigots to grow up and shut up - and perhaps for this thread to close?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tend to agree, Beags. However, many thanks Mods for returning the thread to us, if only for the historical record. When compared to last year's effort (Sorry Scud, I was away and only caught the end of it) and the Rum, Sodomy and the Lash thread, it is an interesting testament to how an institution can change.
What used to happen was nothing other than institutionalised bullying, and it is obvious that most contributors found that distasteful, no matter which particular group was the target. If I tell you that sadly, the keenest bullies on this particular subject were the senior homosexuals (I speak from experience), you may rightly find it doubly distasteful.
On the apparent subject of the thread, we find that 2 of the openly gay chaps opined that a 'gay pride' event was not an appropriate event for uniformed Service participation, 2 did not express an opinion. Most of the apparently straight contributors did not express an opinion on that issue at all.
It is interesting to note that it was invariably the (apparent) anti's who lowered the tone by introducing the mechanics of particular forms of boudoir gymnastics.
Overall, we find there is far more that unites us than divides us:
We are all the type of folk who largely enjoy(ed) Serving.
We share an enjoyment of good-natured banter.
I find Pilgrim101 and I share an interest in fine Islay malt and the Venerable Beagle and I share a dislike for Salem-style witchhunting and quasi-religious charlatans.
Beags, I cannot offer any opportunity to pursue our shared interest! However, Pilgrim101, if you should ever have occasion to visit the more tasteful of our 2 Lowland cities; If you wish, drop me a PM and I'll take you to the Tasting Room and we can sample the non chill-filtered Cask Strength (120+ proof) variety. Don't worry, dress is comparable to the most relaxed of Officers Messes - our previous sartorial discussions on this thread
would not apply!
Finally, I have up to now refrained from responding like for like and I offer this not as a personal attack but as a statement of fact. I find the most telling post from one of the most vocal anti's not on this thread, but here. It seems one contributor's over-weening need to order other people's lives extends from beyond the boudoir to how we should advertise our reunions.
I dare say many of us (gay, straight, black, white or whatever) could agree that all our times in the Service would be (or have been) much happier were it not for that type of person.
What used to happen was nothing other than institutionalised bullying, and it is obvious that most contributors found that distasteful, no matter which particular group was the target. If I tell you that sadly, the keenest bullies on this particular subject were the senior homosexuals (I speak from experience), you may rightly find it doubly distasteful.
On the apparent subject of the thread, we find that 2 of the openly gay chaps opined that a 'gay pride' event was not an appropriate event for uniformed Service participation, 2 did not express an opinion. Most of the apparently straight contributors did not express an opinion on that issue at all.
It is interesting to note that it was invariably the (apparent) anti's who lowered the tone by introducing the mechanics of particular forms of boudoir gymnastics.
Overall, we find there is far more that unites us than divides us:
We are all the type of folk who largely enjoy(ed) Serving.
We share an enjoyment of good-natured banter.
I find Pilgrim101 and I share an interest in fine Islay malt and the Venerable Beagle and I share a dislike for Salem-style witchhunting and quasi-religious charlatans.
Beags, I cannot offer any opportunity to pursue our shared interest! However, Pilgrim101, if you should ever have occasion to visit the more tasteful of our 2 Lowland cities; If you wish, drop me a PM and I'll take you to the Tasting Room and we can sample the non chill-filtered Cask Strength (120+ proof) variety. Don't worry, dress is comparable to the most relaxed of Officers Messes - our previous sartorial discussions on this thread
would not apply!Finally, I have up to now refrained from responding like for like and I offer this not as a personal attack but as a statement of fact. I find the most telling post from one of the most vocal anti's not on this thread, but here. It seems one contributor's over-weening need to order other people's lives extends from beyond the boudoir to how we should advertise our reunions.
I dare say many of us (gay, straight, black, white or whatever) could agree that all our times in the Service would be (or have been) much happier were it not for that type of person.
Last edited by An Teallach; 7th Sep 2005 at 18:24.