Gay recruitment drive by RAF

[XL319]

Here here Tim

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by Melchett01

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

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

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

[Melchett01]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim McLelland]

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

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

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

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

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

[SASless]

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

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

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/...ry_1&printer=1

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

[eiggy]

billy whiz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JessTheDog]

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

[massingbird]

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

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...7347_1,00.html

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

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

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

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

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

[Heliport]

Bockman says he believes the exhibition should end the debate about whether homosexuality is unnatural.

Does that mean (on Bockman's theory) that anything which some humans have an urge to do cannot be 'unnatural'?

Bestiality?


Debate about a previous recruitment drive here Link

[massingbird]

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

[Heliport]

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

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

[An Teallach]

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

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

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

[massingbird]

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

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

[judge11]

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

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Which, of course it never will be

[Tim McLelland]

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

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

[Melchett01]

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

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

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

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by judge11

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

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

Sorry, there I go being gay, doh!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

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

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

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

[Tim McLelland]

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