Gay recruitment drive by RAF
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF has the attitude of various religious denominations got to do with RAF recruitment. Last I heard padres didn't sift recruits. Can we therefore move this portion to JB?
As for the original - the State has no business in the bedroom, and unless there is a case of harassment neither has the RAF or any other employer (with the possible exception of pornographers). While unwelcome approaches during military deployments are a notably difficult situation, this is merely one of many behaviours which are not on when Over There and is therefore a matter of training and manners rather than regulation.
As for the original - the State has no business in the bedroom, and unless there is a case of harassment neither has the RAF or any other employer (with the possible exception of pornographers). While unwelcome approaches during military deployments are a notably difficult situation, this is merely one of many behaviours which are not on when Over There and is therefore a matter of training and manners rather than regulation.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Llandewi Breffi
Age: 54
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not the only gay in the village
..back to the point
"Many of the estimated 12,000 homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stonewall, few if any serving gay troops feel confident enough to declare their sexuality publicly."
At last this recognition of reality can only be viewed as a good thing. There are many talented young people who won't enlist/talented people who haved bailed prematurely due to fear of harrasment from work place collegues and the establishment.
Its not hard to figure it out.
Bacardi and coke please, Myfanwy
"Many of the estimated 12,000 homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces have fought – and in some cases been killed – in Iraq and Afghanistan but, according to Stonewall, few if any serving gay troops feel confident enough to declare their sexuality publicly."
At last this recognition of reality can only be viewed as a good thing. There are many talented young people who won't enlist/talented people who haved bailed prematurely due to fear of harrasment from work place collegues and the establishment.
Its not hard to figure it out.
Bacardi and coke please, Myfanwy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I'll try to be brief! :-
Polomint, how on earth could it be "natural" for a gay man to enjoy the attentions of a woman?! My how I laughed!
Inquistor - I fear you dig yourself into a hole of incredibility the more you write. How can it be that you represent some mysterious silent majority when time after time every poll indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK really don't give a toss about homosexuality or anything connected with it. It's last year's news, and yet a minority still tries to insist that they represent the views of a wider majority that, inexplicably, just haven't bothered to say anything. Surely, any adult has to accept that this is just childish nonsense? It sounds like the kind of line that Mary Whitehouse used to spew-out while the nation sat back and laughed at her.
I'd love to know what evidence you have to support the notion that I'm a bigot. What exactly have I said to suggest that? My only blanket criticism has been of the Church and I've explained why I think I'm entitled to that view. Likewise, I also said that I have no problem with anyone pursuing their religious beliefs. Why should I? My disgust is at the way that the Church clings-on to real political power despite having absolutely no right to actually have any. Nobody voted the Church into their position and God certainly didn't sanction their actions either. And yet they continually try to block government legistlation whenever it is deemed to be pro-gay (when in actual fact it is merely pro-equality), and allow one of their leaders (The Pope) to continually spout poisonous anti-gay rhetoric on a world stage, while our beloved Arch Bish simply wrings his hands and says "ooh dear, it is difficult isn't it?"... and you're suggesting that to condemn this kind of activity is a sign of bigotry? If I'm a bigot then what does that make the Pope?!
Your nonsense about world religions is even more hilarious. Patently, it wouldn't make any difference if 100 percent of the world's religions denounced homosexuality would it? That just proves that 100 percent of the worldwide church is both wrong and dangerous. But I think most of us know that already, while thousands of servicemen are continually getting themselves killed around the world, all because one stupid religion thinks it's better than another one.
I accept your point that if I, or anyone else, doesn't like a religion I shouldn't try and change it and of course I wouldn't want to. As far as I'm concerned, religions should be free to say whatever they like. However, at the same time this must also mean that everyone else who doesn't give a toss about religion should also be allowed to say what they like without any of this blasphemy or incitement rubbish which is now being used by religious groups so that they can have the luxury of saying whatever they like, unchallenged. Walking away from a religion if you don't like it is fine, as long as the religions kindly avoid trying to interfere with my (or anybody else's) life. That's only fair isn't it?
As for your comments about Mr Kinsey, etc, I think you'll find that I mentioned this matter previously, if you'd bother to read what I've said instead of merely looking for points to argue about. As I said, Kinsey isn't a good model to refer-to, by any standards, but from a gay person's viewpoint we'd probably be better-off accepting the findings of just about any other research which hasn't been funded by a religious group, because every study has invariably produced results that put the infamous "one-in-ten" figure at something rather higher. So for any self-respecting homophobe, Mr.Kinsey's figures are the best ones you're going to get, unless you're going to try and grasp the ludicrous "research" which has been produced by comical groups such as the Christian Institute, etc, which are so laughable they don't even warrant consideration.
As for "lecturing" anyone, I think you'll find that I have merely been providing direct answers to direct questions and comments from other people. Or perhaps your definition of "lecturing" is the publication of a view which is contrary to yours? Surely, if someone is making a comment or asking a question about homosexuality, the viewpoint of a gay man is a good thing, isn't it?
I'm always reluctant to throw-in the question of why a straight man should be so keen to make such a fuss about homosexuality, as it does always sound rather like a bit of a "cheap shot", but your posting, complete with the colourful use of caps and bold type, does suggest that the subject really does upset you, in which case I think anyone would be entitled to ask why? It doesn't bother me that straight men are straight so why should it even interest you whether gay men are gay? It just doesn't make sense. But as you rightly say in closing, you should try to accept that others do not think as you do and the world certainly isn't as you think it is. I fully accept that some people continue to think that homosexuality is completely wrong - that is your choice of course, but you must accept that by the same standards, any gay man or woman would, by definition, take a contrary view? Likewise, if you can manage to take a wider view of our society, you must surely accept that, like it or not, homosexuality really isn't an issue for the vast majority of British citizens and that the Church is now an irrelevance? If you don't accept that fact, I fear you simply look as if you're fooling yourself.
MarkD - I think you sum things up nicely there. The State really doesn't have any business in anyone's bedroom. By the same standards, the Church should accept that it no longer has any right to regard itself as part of the State and refrain from being involved in any way. Unwelcome approaches whilst in the military are precisely that - unwelcome, and I assume that this would apply whether they come from a man or a woman.
It will be interesting to see just what impact the new MoD initiative has, once the RAF has been suitably "lectured" by Stonewall. One has to wonder precisely what advice Stonewall is going to give? Hopefully it is going to be pretty detailed and fascinating stuff, considering the amount of money they're being given, and yet I really can't think of anything that they could advise other than a liberal application of common sense! I wonder if we'll ever be afforded the luxury of actually reading their recommendadtions? I suspect they'd make amusing reading for everyone - gay or straight!
Polomint, how on earth could it be "natural" for a gay man to enjoy the attentions of a woman?! My how I laughed!
Inquistor - I fear you dig yourself into a hole of incredibility the more you write. How can it be that you represent some mysterious silent majority when time after time every poll indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK really don't give a toss about homosexuality or anything connected with it. It's last year's news, and yet a minority still tries to insist that they represent the views of a wider majority that, inexplicably, just haven't bothered to say anything. Surely, any adult has to accept that this is just childish nonsense? It sounds like the kind of line that Mary Whitehouse used to spew-out while the nation sat back and laughed at her.
I'd love to know what evidence you have to support the notion that I'm a bigot. What exactly have I said to suggest that? My only blanket criticism has been of the Church and I've explained why I think I'm entitled to that view. Likewise, I also said that I have no problem with anyone pursuing their religious beliefs. Why should I? My disgust is at the way that the Church clings-on to real political power despite having absolutely no right to actually have any. Nobody voted the Church into their position and God certainly didn't sanction their actions either. And yet they continually try to block government legistlation whenever it is deemed to be pro-gay (when in actual fact it is merely pro-equality), and allow one of their leaders (The Pope) to continually spout poisonous anti-gay rhetoric on a world stage, while our beloved Arch Bish simply wrings his hands and says "ooh dear, it is difficult isn't it?"... and you're suggesting that to condemn this kind of activity is a sign of bigotry? If I'm a bigot then what does that make the Pope?!
Your nonsense about world religions is even more hilarious. Patently, it wouldn't make any difference if 100 percent of the world's religions denounced homosexuality would it? That just proves that 100 percent of the worldwide church is both wrong and dangerous. But I think most of us know that already, while thousands of servicemen are continually getting themselves killed around the world, all because one stupid religion thinks it's better than another one.
I accept your point that if I, or anyone else, doesn't like a religion I shouldn't try and change it and of course I wouldn't want to. As far as I'm concerned, religions should be free to say whatever they like. However, at the same time this must also mean that everyone else who doesn't give a toss about religion should also be allowed to say what they like without any of this blasphemy or incitement rubbish which is now being used by religious groups so that they can have the luxury of saying whatever they like, unchallenged. Walking away from a religion if you don't like it is fine, as long as the religions kindly avoid trying to interfere with my (or anybody else's) life. That's only fair isn't it?
As for your comments about Mr Kinsey, etc, I think you'll find that I mentioned this matter previously, if you'd bother to read what I've said instead of merely looking for points to argue about. As I said, Kinsey isn't a good model to refer-to, by any standards, but from a gay person's viewpoint we'd probably be better-off accepting the findings of just about any other research which hasn't been funded by a religious group, because every study has invariably produced results that put the infamous "one-in-ten" figure at something rather higher. So for any self-respecting homophobe, Mr.Kinsey's figures are the best ones you're going to get, unless you're going to try and grasp the ludicrous "research" which has been produced by comical groups such as the Christian Institute, etc, which are so laughable they don't even warrant consideration.
As for "lecturing" anyone, I think you'll find that I have merely been providing direct answers to direct questions and comments from other people. Or perhaps your definition of "lecturing" is the publication of a view which is contrary to yours? Surely, if someone is making a comment or asking a question about homosexuality, the viewpoint of a gay man is a good thing, isn't it?
I'm always reluctant to throw-in the question of why a straight man should be so keen to make such a fuss about homosexuality, as it does always sound rather like a bit of a "cheap shot", but your posting, complete with the colourful use of caps and bold type, does suggest that the subject really does upset you, in which case I think anyone would be entitled to ask why? It doesn't bother me that straight men are straight so why should it even interest you whether gay men are gay? It just doesn't make sense. But as you rightly say in closing, you should try to accept that others do not think as you do and the world certainly isn't as you think it is. I fully accept that some people continue to think that homosexuality is completely wrong - that is your choice of course, but you must accept that by the same standards, any gay man or woman would, by definition, take a contrary view? Likewise, if you can manage to take a wider view of our society, you must surely accept that, like it or not, homosexuality really isn't an issue for the vast majority of British citizens and that the Church is now an irrelevance? If you don't accept that fact, I fear you simply look as if you're fooling yourself.
MarkD - I think you sum things up nicely there. The State really doesn't have any business in anyone's bedroom. By the same standards, the Church should accept that it no longer has any right to regard itself as part of the State and refrain from being involved in any way. Unwelcome approaches whilst in the military are precisely that - unwelcome, and I assume that this would apply whether they come from a man or a woman.
It will be interesting to see just what impact the new MoD initiative has, once the RAF has been suitably "lectured" by Stonewall. One has to wonder precisely what advice Stonewall is going to give? Hopefully it is going to be pretty detailed and fascinating stuff, considering the amount of money they're being given, and yet I really can't think of anything that they could advise other than a liberal application of common sense! I wonder if we'll ever be afforded the luxury of actually reading their recommendadtions? I suspect they'd make amusing reading for everyone - gay or straight!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just re-read the entire thread of 130 posts. When ABIW first asserted himself as the "Silent Majority", the number of posters who had posted overtly anti-gay posts was ... er ... one (ABIW) - if one discounts the blatantly homosexual Mr Whizz.
The aptly named Inquisitor is, as far as I can see, the only other person overtly on your team ABIW.
More heat, rather than light, seems to have been generated on a discussion of religion or "The Church" (which one is not specified), which appears to me to have the square root of rock-all to do with the question at hand. Tim appears to have raised the question in response to the delightful Mr Whizz's accusations of immorality.
Inquisitor - As I have said, I have only identified one lady who protests too much on this thread and, I regret, I cannot take credit for it being "my line". It was Shakespeare's (Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2).
All I would say on the matter of organized religion is that despite years of lynchings, burnings, beatings, murders, sackings and abuse, us dykes and poofters have brought about a change in society with a death-toll inflicted by our side of precisely zero. Your synagogues / churches / mosques have arrived at their current schismatic state at a cost of millions of the lives of jews / gnostics / cathars / protestants / catholics / shi'ites / sunnis etc.
If your Gods / Prophets were to return tomorrow, I wonder which team they might decide had more closely followed their doctrines of love, even if we have ignored their doctrines on who may lie with whom, the sinfulness of shellfish, which of our daughters we may sell into slavery and how many people should be invited to the stoning of our adulterous neighbours?
Oh, and it seems the great majority of posters (gay and straight) agree that the RAF have been 'had' by Stonewall and that it should not be positively discriminating or patronizing gay people.
The aptly named Inquisitor is, as far as I can see, the only other person overtly on your team ABIW.
More heat, rather than light, seems to have been generated on a discussion of religion or "The Church" (which one is not specified), which appears to me to have the square root of rock-all to do with the question at hand. Tim appears to have raised the question in response to the delightful Mr Whizz's accusations of immorality.
Inquisitor - As I have said, I have only identified one lady who protests too much on this thread and, I regret, I cannot take credit for it being "my line". It was Shakespeare's (Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2).
All I would say on the matter of organized religion is that despite years of lynchings, burnings, beatings, murders, sackings and abuse, us dykes and poofters have brought about a change in society with a death-toll inflicted by our side of precisely zero. Your synagogues / churches / mosques have arrived at their current schismatic state at a cost of millions of the lives of jews / gnostics / cathars / protestants / catholics / shi'ites / sunnis etc.
If your Gods / Prophets were to return tomorrow, I wonder which team they might decide had more closely followed their doctrines of love, even if we have ignored their doctrines on who may lie with whom, the sinfulness of shellfish, which of our daughters we may sell into slavery and how many people should be invited to the stoning of our adulterous neighbours?
Oh, and it seems the great majority of posters (gay and straight) agree that the RAF have been 'had' by Stonewall and that it should not be positively discriminating or patronizing gay people.
Mint with a Hole
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: blighty
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
Tim,
I'm very lost..
When did I say it was natural for a gay man to enjoy the attention of women? I dont recall...
I did say this however..
'Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural.'
So yeah, I was talking about the 'norm' for a second.
Sorry, I may be totally lost, but if it made you laugh then fine.
Polo.
I'm very lost..
When did I say it was natural for a gay man to enjoy the attention of women? I dont recall...I did say this however..
'Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural.'
So yeah, I was talking about the 'norm' for a second.
Sorry, I may be totally lost, but if it made you laugh then fine.
Polo.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it doesn't affect you Tim and is really none of your business, unless you work for Stonewall.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's the case, then the Great British Taxpayer has every right to ask the Armed Forces to stop whining to the BBC / newspapers every time they ****-up their own budget.
Actually, I think you'll find (certainly where major projects are concerned) it's the Executive / Parliament that decides how the MoD budget is to be spent. The RN & RAF case is not helped when either as in days of yore they waste millions of their discretionary spend sacking competent Servicemen & women, or nowadays waste thousands patronizing them.
Actually, I think you'll find (certainly where major projects are concerned) it's the Executive / Parliament that decides how the MoD budget is to be spent. The RN & RAF case is not helped when either as in days of yore they waste millions of their discretionary spend sacking competent Servicemen & women, or nowadays waste thousands patronizing them.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find the taxpayer does have a legitimate interest how the MoD spend the pennies - remember the curtains and carpets incident at Benson a while back?
Or is this a way of dismissing the chap because he’s a civie and you don’t agree with him?
Edited to add 'Bu@@er (oo-er) AT beat me (oo-er) to it!' Finbar Saunders lives!
Or is this a way of dismissing the chap because he’s a civie and you don’t agree with him?
Edited to add 'Bu@@er (oo-er) AT beat me (oo-er) to it!' Finbar Saunders lives!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, Maple: Don't bring S&M into this or you'll be getting our flagellant and Opus Dei-type Christian brethren excited! 
I suppose at least the Kirk o' Jock stopped at objecting to sex standing up ... lest it should lead to dancing!
I suppose at least the Kirk o' Jock stopped at objecting to sex standing up ... lest it should lead to dancing!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excuse me? :-
trying to impose his thoughts and way of life on an organisation that he does not belong to. I dont agree with his way of life and I dont want have to share a room with a gay man in the Forces just because he says its the law.
Where exactly, have I imposed my thoughts? What nonsense!
Incidentally, if you don't want to ever share a room with a gay man in the Forces, I trust you're going to ask everyone you encounter to fill-out a suitable declaration form, possibly backed-up by a Trisha-esq lie detector test?
trying to impose his thoughts and way of life on an organisation that he does not belong to. I dont agree with his way of life and I dont want have to share a room with a gay man in the Forces just because he says its the law.
Where exactly, have I imposed my thoughts? What nonsense!
Incidentally, if you don't want to ever share a room with a gay man in the Forces, I trust you're going to ask everyone you encounter to fill-out a suitable declaration form, possibly backed-up by a Trisha-esq lie detector test?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said
"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc
AT
"I've just re-read the entire thread of 130 posts. When ABIW first asserted himself as the "Silent Majority", the number of posters who had posted overtly anti-gay posts was ... er ... one (ABIW) - if one discounts the blatantly homosexual Mr Whizz.
Please feel free to re read my posts on this subject and show me where I am being overtly anti gay because I am a little unsure where I have given that impression, unless you want to brand me overtly anti-gay for saying I would be uncomfortable sharing a shower with a gay guy
As I said and I repeat
"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc"
I rest my case young man
Ratty stop it as young Tim will have a coranary if you keep that line up, you can almost hear the nah nah nee nah nah with each post
Rapidly edited to to ensure AT is not confused
Damn and blast tooo bloody late
"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc
AT
"I've just re-read the entire thread of 130 posts. When ABIW first asserted himself as the "Silent Majority", the number of posters who had posted overtly anti-gay posts was ... er ... one (ABIW) - if one discounts the blatantly homosexual Mr Whizz.
Please feel free to re read my posts on this subject and show me where I am being overtly anti gay because I am a little unsure where I have given that impression, unless you want to brand me overtly anti-gay for saying I would be uncomfortable sharing a shower with a gay guy
As I said and I repeat
"To have any thought with regards to any minority grouping, which does not fit with said grouping mindset has one immediately labelled as closet/bigot/racist/sexist etc etc"
I rest my case young man
Ratty stop it as young Tim will have a coranary if you keep that line up, you can almost hear the nah nah nee nah nah with each post
Rapidly edited to to ensure AT is not confused
Damn and blast tooo bloody late
Last edited by Always_broken_in_wilts; 5th Jan 2007 at 17:02.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely enough it’s the very self-same Catholic church (and it’s off-shoots) that condemns homosexuality so much that has been a hot-bed of blue on blue action down the centuries!
Perhaps Tim isn’t so much “trying to impose his thoughts and way of life” rather is having a difficult time understanding why the nature of one’s sleeping partners should feature highly on so many other peoples ‘give-a-tossometers’
One of the problems identified here is that the general public (non-serving Div) and the Mob are growing apart - perhaps we need more social intercourse like this?
Perhaps Tim isn’t so much “trying to impose his thoughts and way of life” rather is having a difficult time understanding why the nature of one’s sleeping partners should feature highly on so many other peoples ‘give-a-tossometers’
One of the problems identified here is that the general public (non-serving Div) and the Mob are growing apart - perhaps we need more social intercourse like this?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple, Quite. Sadly, not only blue on blue but blue on juvenile pink and blue action.
ABIW
Sorry, I must have assumed the worst as to which "Silent Majority" you were asserting yourself to be a member of.
However,
Honest, I didn't have you down as a lady who doth protest too much!
and
Are you chatting me up?
Sadly, I can't cough to being in the first flush of youth. Who knows, we may even have shared some steamy .... no, these would be showers in the Service ... freezing dribbles with intermittent scalding blasts in the past. As I tend not to take my handbag into the shower, you were probably none the wiser. I seemed to last for 26 years before the Colours without ever getting excited in the showers.
ABIW
Sorry, I must have assumed the worst as to which "Silent Majority" you were asserting yourself to be a member of.
However,
where I am being overtly gay
and
I rest my case young man
Sadly, I can't cough to being in the first flush of youth. Who knows, we may even have shared some steamy .... no, these would be showers in the Service ... freezing dribbles with intermittent scalding blasts in the past. As I tend not to take my handbag into the shower, you were probably none the wiser. I seemed to last for 26 years before the Colours without ever getting excited in the showers.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the RAF targetting of the LG community an unsubtle attempt to entice Mateleots disgarded in the imminent cuts to the RN (soon to be renamed British Coastal Defence Force)? 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm...
they could be given different accommodation
Nah, it'd never work, we know what happens; as soon as we decorate and make everything beautiful, all the hetties will want to move-in to lounge around being "trendy and cool" as usual
they could be given different accommodation
Nah, it'd never work, we know what happens; as soon as we decorate and make everything beautiful, all the hetties will want to move-in to lounge around being "trendy and cool" as usual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can it be that you represent some mysterious silent majority when time after time every poll indicates that the vast majority of people in the UK really don't give a toss about homosexuality or anything connected with it. It's last year's news, and yet a minority still tries to insist that they represent the views of a wider majority that, inexplicably, just haven't bothered to say anything.
If you simply chose to get on with your lives as you chose, quietly and without fuss or ceremony, like the rest of us do, then it WOULDN'T be an issue and no-one really WOULD give a toss - but you seem incapable of doing that for some unfathomable reason. It is not what you are that is objected to, it is the way your agenda is forced upon us - "You WILL give us a hotel room!"; "You WILL allow us to invade your schools and indoctrinate your children that a gay partnership is as good as a normal marriage!"; "You WILL allow us to prance about on the streets and flaunt our lifestyle in your face!"; "You WILL hand over thousands of pounds of scarce taxpayers' money for us to further our own cause!" - THIS is what those like me object to; sadly, most of us are too afraid to say so in public for fear of lawsuits or even prosecutions in this neo-soviet state we now find ourselves in. I can assure you, though, that is IS said in private.
every study has invariably produced results that put the infamous "one-in-ten" figure at something rather higher.
I'd love to know what evidence you have to support the notion that I'm a bigot.
Nobody voted the Church into their position and God certainly didn't sanction their actions either. And yet they continually try to block government legistlation whenever it is deemed to be pro-gay (when in actual fact it is merely pro-equality), and allow one of their leaders (The Pope) to continually spout poisonous anti-gay rhetoric on a world stage, while our beloved Arch Bish simply wrings his hands and says "ooh dear, it is difficult isn't it?"... and you're suggesting that to condemn this kind of activity is a sign of bigotry? If I'm a bigot then what does that make the Pope?!
God certainly didn't sanction their actions either.
All I would say on the matter of organized religion is that despite years of lynchings, burnings, beatings, murders, sackings and abuse, us dykes and poofters have brought about a change in society with a death-toll inflicted by our side of precisely zero
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts