Gays in the RAF
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I and a few of my family serve in the RAF. One of them recently "outed" himself as he thought he needed to let us all know but he was worried about our reaction. Most of us responded with "we already knew; you can dance and have fashion sense!" He was quite relieved that the response was just "banter".
I also work with a young lady who is in a civil partnership. Other than finding out through her arrival interview, she doesn't discuss her partner or sexuality any more or less than her heterosexual colleagues.
The point is, let people find out through getting to know you rather than announcing it, particularly out of the blue or in new company. Many wont care either way unless you have already tried to make it an issue. In that case, as a previous poster mentioned, it becomes about your personality rather than sexuality.
I also work with a young lady who is in a civil partnership. Other than finding out through her arrival interview, she doesn't discuss her partner or sexuality any more or less than her heterosexual colleagues.
The point is, let people find out through getting to know you rather than announcing it, particularly out of the blue or in new company. Many wont care either way unless you have already tried to make it an issue. In that case, as a previous poster mentioned, it becomes about your personality rather than sexuality.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting stuff here and as a card-carrying homo, I'll throw-in my two penneth...
I agree entirely that there is no need for anyone to proverbially shove their sexual preferences down everyone's throats (*insert cheap jokes as appropriate*). Ultimately it's nobody else's business what one's sexual preference might be. But at the same time, it's quite offensive to keep pushing this notion that a gay man or woman should somehow be obliged to introduce his sexuality slowly to others, or avoid mentioning it, so that the heterosexuals can tolerate it. Why on earth should anybody - gay or straight - be expected to tailor his behaviour to suit the expectations and preconceptions of other people? It's quite absurd.
Okay, I'm not saying that every gay member of the armed forces should be wearing pink and carrying a rainbow flag, but they should be entitled to simply behave like everyone else. This means that if they want to introduce their partner to others then they should be able to do that without having to consider what reaction it might cause. It's the age-old issue of equality. Naturally, no straight man would pause for even a second to worry about whether he should mention his partner, or if he saw some girl on TV he fancied, or any other matter which underlined his heterosexuality. So by comparison, no gay person should be expected to act any differently. This isn't to suggest that they should be parading their sexuality somehow, but at the same time this is a long way from this slightly offensive notion that they should have to stop and consider all their thoughts, comments and actions before proceeding. Why should they? I don't expect any heterosexual man to moderate his actions or comments, so it seems only reasonable that the reverse should also apply.
It's probably very difficult for most heterosexual men and women to understand that from a homo's viewpoint, it's depressing to have to spend one's life continually evaluating situations so that one can establish whether one's sexuality is going to be an issue. Okay, some of us just don't do that and we leave it to other people to either like us or hate us, but lots of gay people just aren't that open about their lives. And why? Because they think they wll stand out from the crowd. This is the fundamental problem for gay people in the armed forces. It's not actually about sexuality at all - it's about fitting-in.
As long as the old gay jokes and banter continue - no matter how harmless and good-natured it may be, then people (not all, bust most) will be reluctant to be completely open about their lives. It's very sad, because it discourages countless very able men and women from joining the forces. It's certainly true that most people don't even see the gay/straight thing as an issue any more, but there is still an established attitude and social order that reveals itself through jokes and comments, which discourages gay men and women from regarding their sexuality as a non-issue. But things are changing very gradually, and I'm sure that with sufficient time, even the endless gay jokes will no longer even seem funny, and we will inevitably reach a stage where everybody wonders what on Earth all the fuss was about!
Sadly, fear it will be later rather than sooner. Just when I think that everybody is finally "over it" I walked into a bar only last week to actually hear someone mutter "backs against the wall lads" ... I thought that line had disappeared with the last 1970's sitcom but it seems not! In some ways it is quite funny though because you could bet that (based on even the most pessimistic statistics) at least a couple of the "lads" in question would also have been homos even though they choose not to say so. The irony is often quite comical, especially the hilarious notion that every straight man is somehow sexually attractive to any gay man. I never quite worked-out where that bizarre notion came from! I find such matters quite amusing but spare a thought for others (especially younger gay people who might be thinking of joining the forces) who might not have the same outlook. They are no better or no worse than anybody else. Whatever they get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is nobody else's business and let's be frank about this - some of the goings-on in straight people's bedrooms are probably much more colourful!
I agree entirely that there is no need for anyone to proverbially shove their sexual preferences down everyone's throats (*insert cheap jokes as appropriate*). Ultimately it's nobody else's business what one's sexual preference might be. But at the same time, it's quite offensive to keep pushing this notion that a gay man or woman should somehow be obliged to introduce his sexuality slowly to others, or avoid mentioning it, so that the heterosexuals can tolerate it. Why on earth should anybody - gay or straight - be expected to tailor his behaviour to suit the expectations and preconceptions of other people? It's quite absurd.
Okay, I'm not saying that every gay member of the armed forces should be wearing pink and carrying a rainbow flag, but they should be entitled to simply behave like everyone else. This means that if they want to introduce their partner to others then they should be able to do that without having to consider what reaction it might cause. It's the age-old issue of equality. Naturally, no straight man would pause for even a second to worry about whether he should mention his partner, or if he saw some girl on TV he fancied, or any other matter which underlined his heterosexuality. So by comparison, no gay person should be expected to act any differently. This isn't to suggest that they should be parading their sexuality somehow, but at the same time this is a long way from this slightly offensive notion that they should have to stop and consider all their thoughts, comments and actions before proceeding. Why should they? I don't expect any heterosexual man to moderate his actions or comments, so it seems only reasonable that the reverse should also apply.
It's probably very difficult for most heterosexual men and women to understand that from a homo's viewpoint, it's depressing to have to spend one's life continually evaluating situations so that one can establish whether one's sexuality is going to be an issue. Okay, some of us just don't do that and we leave it to other people to either like us or hate us, but lots of gay people just aren't that open about their lives. And why? Because they think they wll stand out from the crowd. This is the fundamental problem for gay people in the armed forces. It's not actually about sexuality at all - it's about fitting-in.
As long as the old gay jokes and banter continue - no matter how harmless and good-natured it may be, then people (not all, bust most) will be reluctant to be completely open about their lives. It's very sad, because it discourages countless very able men and women from joining the forces. It's certainly true that most people don't even see the gay/straight thing as an issue any more, but there is still an established attitude and social order that reveals itself through jokes and comments, which discourages gay men and women from regarding their sexuality as a non-issue. But things are changing very gradually, and I'm sure that with sufficient time, even the endless gay jokes will no longer even seem funny, and we will inevitably reach a stage where everybody wonders what on Earth all the fuss was about!
Sadly, fear it will be later rather than sooner. Just when I think that everybody is finally "over it" I walked into a bar only last week to actually hear someone mutter "backs against the wall lads" ... I thought that line had disappeared with the last 1970's sitcom but it seems not! In some ways it is quite funny though because you could bet that (based on even the most pessimistic statistics) at least a couple of the "lads" in question would also have been homos even though they choose not to say so. The irony is often quite comical, especially the hilarious notion that every straight man is somehow sexually attractive to any gay man. I never quite worked-out where that bizarre notion came from! I find such matters quite amusing but spare a thought for others (especially younger gay people who might be thinking of joining the forces) who might not have the same outlook. They are no better or no worse than anybody else. Whatever they get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is nobody else's business and let's be frank about this - some of the goings-on in straight people's bedrooms are probably much more colourful!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Tim while I agree with much of what you have posted I think that the issue at heart here is the notion of the original poster putting out a deliberate challenge.
He's actually wanting to provoke the kind of reaction that underlines all the irrational phobias on the subject. And it's that kind of attitude which will get him and others of a similar ilk (ie provactive activists not homosexuals) an extremely bad name.
He's already saying to the world that he's not going to fit in and the rest of the world will have to dance to his tune. That's fine and dandy but go and do it somewhere where attitudes like that can be tolerated (and coped with) more easily.
As I said in an earlier post - as an ex IOT flt cdr if he had fronted me on day one with that kind of attitude I would be writing him up for the chop.
Still think that the whole thing is a wind-up
He's actually wanting to provoke the kind of reaction that underlines all the irrational phobias on the subject. And it's that kind of attitude which will get him and others of a similar ilk (ie provactive activists not homosexuals) an extremely bad name.
He's already saying to the world that he's not going to fit in and the rest of the world will have to dance to his tune. That's fine and dandy but go and do it somewhere where attitudes like that can be tolerated (and coped with) more easily.
As I said in an earlier post - as an ex IOT flt cdr if he had fronted me on day one with that kind of attitude I would be writing him up for the chop.
Still think that the whole thing is a wind-up
Tim,
You're absolutely and completely right on one thing, old chum.
And that is that it's absolutely not about sexuality and that it is all about 'fitting in'. And just as you'd need to keep radical political opinions to yourself in the forces, or your deeply held belief in scientology, so too you may need to hide your gay light under a bit of a bushel.
The forces are inherently conservative (with a small c) and rely very heavily on an unusually high degree of cameraderie and cohesiveness. The successful soldier, sailor or airman should therefore be cautious about 'pushing' any unusual or contentious side of their personality or beliefs (even though this 'side' might be unexceptionable in civil life), and should introduce it to his colleagues carefully, or should avoid mentioning it, so that he can be sure that his colleagues can tolerate it. It's not about sexuality, but because the forces represent a unique environment (where you may be placing your life in the hands of your colleagues and vice versa) it is fair to expect the individual to "tailor his behaviour to suit the expectations and preconceptions of other people."
As Siseman says, there's no place in the forces for someone whose attitude is that he is: "not going to fit in and the rest of the world will have to dance to his tune."
That's fine and dandy for journos and civvies like us, but not in the forces.
A quiet, straightforward, non pushy gay man who wants to fit in and serve will be an asset to a squadron, as would a quiet scientologist or a former member of the Socialist Worker's Party. It's all about fitting in and serving Queen, Country, Service and Unit, and not one's own narrow self interest.
Enjoyed your Vulcan tome, by the way.
You're absolutely and completely right on one thing, old chum.
And that is that it's absolutely not about sexuality and that it is all about 'fitting in'. And just as you'd need to keep radical political opinions to yourself in the forces, or your deeply held belief in scientology, so too you may need to hide your gay light under a bit of a bushel.
The forces are inherently conservative (with a small c) and rely very heavily on an unusually high degree of cameraderie and cohesiveness. The successful soldier, sailor or airman should therefore be cautious about 'pushing' any unusual or contentious side of their personality or beliefs (even though this 'side' might be unexceptionable in civil life), and should introduce it to his colleagues carefully, or should avoid mentioning it, so that he can be sure that his colleagues can tolerate it. It's not about sexuality, but because the forces represent a unique environment (where you may be placing your life in the hands of your colleagues and vice versa) it is fair to expect the individual to "tailor his behaviour to suit the expectations and preconceptions of other people."
As Siseman says, there's no place in the forces for someone whose attitude is that he is: "not going to fit in and the rest of the world will have to dance to his tune."
That's fine and dandy for journos and civvies like us, but not in the forces.
A quiet, straightforward, non pushy gay man who wants to fit in and serve will be an asset to a squadron, as would a quiet scientologist or a former member of the Socialist Worker's Party. It's all about fitting in and serving Queen, Country, Service and Unit, and not one's own narrow self interest.
Enjoyed your Vulcan tome, by the way.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that although "banner waving" might be a useful tactic for us poofs in the right place at the right time, there's probably little point in adopting this kind of attitude within the armed forces, as it inevitably creates even more polarisations of attitude. It is indeed a case of fitting-in, and there is no reason why a gay man (or woman) should not be regarded as just the same as any other serving member of the forces - because they are the same of course. My only concern is when some people suggest (as they have on this thread) that a gay man should be obliged to "introduce" his sexuality as if it's some sort of dark secret which can only be revealed gently, to the right people. Clearly, this kind of attitude only serves to foster the notion that being gay is either somehow wrong or even unusual, and I think it's fundamentally important that every effort is made to avoid falling into this trap.
As long as this kind of attitude is maintained (either intentionally or otherwise) there will always be problems surrounding the gay issue. The whole problem is never going to go away until we reach a stage where being gay or straight isn't even worthy of comment. I'm sure the armed forces will get to that stage eventually, and then we can forget about all this nonsense and move-on to more important matters! But suggesting that anyone should have to adjust his actions or behaviour in order for others to "tolerate" it, is quite absurd. Likewise, the I'm here and I'm queer - get used to it attitude is just as bad, as it also simply serves to suggest that being gay is somehow unusual. Either way, it's a bad idea.
Ultimately, I think the armed forces will simply adjust to the whole gay issue over time. It's inevitable that more and more openly gay people will gradually trickle into the services, and as this happens, straight people will change their perceptions until the whole issue is just too mundane to even think about. I suspect it will take quite a long time but it will happen.
Glad you liked the Vulcan book Jacko. Lightning book is slowly following-on!
As long as this kind of attitude is maintained (either intentionally or otherwise) there will always be problems surrounding the gay issue. The whole problem is never going to go away until we reach a stage where being gay or straight isn't even worthy of comment. I'm sure the armed forces will get to that stage eventually, and then we can forget about all this nonsense and move-on to more important matters! But suggesting that anyone should have to adjust his actions or behaviour in order for others to "tolerate" it, is quite absurd. Likewise, the I'm here and I'm queer - get used to it attitude is just as bad, as it also simply serves to suggest that being gay is somehow unusual. Either way, it's a bad idea.
Ultimately, I think the armed forces will simply adjust to the whole gay issue over time. It's inevitable that more and more openly gay people will gradually trickle into the services, and as this happens, straight people will change their perceptions until the whole issue is just too mundane to even think about. I suspect it will take quite a long time but it will happen.
Glad you liked the Vulcan book Jacko. Lightning book is slowly following-on!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Devon
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Gai pilot, are you still keen to join the RAF
After reading Nine pages, I am hooked into this to find out the end result
I may have to give Eastenders a miss tonight just to get the latest from this forum
After reading Nine pages, I am hooked into this to find out the end result
I may have to give Eastenders a miss tonight just to get the latest from this forum
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tolerance is one thing, acceptance quite another
I agree Beagle, the two things are certainly not the same. Striving for tolerance is both pointless and vaguely insulting. It's not as if I (or any of my queer comrades) regard ourselves as being candidates for tolerance, as that simply goes back to what said previously about fostering the notion that being gay is somehow wrong, or even unusual, which it cleary isn't - it's just a fact of life, rather like the colour of one's eyes. Acceptance is the key, and I'm sure that it will take a very long time for everyone (especially in the forces) to finally accept and understand that there are some facts of life that simply need to be accepted. Then we can finally move on. But we're getting there slowly and it's a gradual but inevitable process. In all fairness I think the armed forces have now done everything they can to wipe-out any overt homophobia and bigotry, so we're only left with the task of persuading the remaining die-hards that we're just normal people, the same as everybody else, but with a preference for people of the same sex, just like they have a preference for people of the opposite sex. That's all there is to it, and all the other "baggage" is purely in the minds of fools, religous bigots and (some) media!
I agree Beagle, the two things are certainly not the same. Striving for tolerance is both pointless and vaguely insulting. It's not as if I (or any of my queer comrades) regard ourselves as being candidates for tolerance, as that simply goes back to what said previously about fostering the notion that being gay is somehow wrong, or even unusual, which it cleary isn't - it's just a fact of life, rather like the colour of one's eyes. Acceptance is the key, and I'm sure that it will take a very long time for everyone (especially in the forces) to finally accept and understand that there are some facts of life that simply need to be accepted. Then we can finally move on. But we're getting there slowly and it's a gradual but inevitable process. In all fairness I think the armed forces have now done everything they can to wipe-out any overt homophobia and bigotry, so we're only left with the task of persuading the remaining die-hards that we're just normal people, the same as everybody else, but with a preference for people of the same sex, just like they have a preference for people of the opposite sex. That's all there is to it, and all the other "baggage" is purely in the minds of fools, religous bigots and (some) media!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
but with a preference for people of the same sex, just like they have a preference for people of the opposite sex. That's all there is to it,
These are the people who, whilst tolerating homosexuality, will never accept it. Their choice.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We were on a conference, had a meal, few beers etc, and our 'leader' (but not to the toilet) was ready to head for the pole dancing club. Two of us decided that we would take the taxi with him and then push on back to the hotel.
He might have been p!ssed off at being abandoned but he would have had a free taxi ride.
Baggage? Maybe. Fools or bigots? No. We simply did not want to do what he was doing nor hear about it afterwards.
Anyway it was closed.
Chapel you know.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious:
Agreed.
I think I have witnessed a great deal more social embarrassment over the years from OTT strident "hetero" posturing and pandering in company, than ever from the other persuasion.
Also, almost always, a case of "empty vessels....." when it came down to actual success rates.
Agreed.
I think I have witnessed a great deal more social embarrassment over the years from OTT strident "hetero" posturing and pandering in company, than ever from the other persuasion.
Also, almost always, a case of "empty vessels....." when it came down to actual success rates.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim said, as part of a long and well written post:-
"Okay, I'm not saying that every gay member of the armed forces should be wearing pink and carrying a rainbow flag, but they should be entitled to simply behave like everyone else."
That is the problem - they can't behave like everyone else because they aren't like everyone else!
"Okay, I'm not saying that every gay member of the armed forces should be wearing pink and carrying a rainbow flag, but they should be entitled to simply behave like everyone else."
That is the problem - they can't behave like everyone else because they aren't like everyone else!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting comments there:-
Goudie - I agree that some people will never accept homosexuality. But thankfully, it's a simple fact of life that sooner or later they'll all be dead. In many respects, homophobia is a generational matter which will ultimately disappear. But I quite agree that you can't force anybody to accept anything. It's more a case of creating a proverbially level playing field where gay people are no longer the victims of prejudice, so that even the most bigoted of people might finally recognise gay people for what they are - people. As I said previously, I think the armed forces have done all they can do in this respect now, so it's simply a case of leaving things as they are, until attitudes and perceptions change - which they inevitably will (they already have of course).
Max - I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the definition of acceptance? As I've said, it's impossible to force anybody to accept anything. However, when necessary, of course it's important that some things are forcibly tolerated, although as I've also said, the term "tolerate" is slightly inappropriate for the reasons I mentioned. I presume you wouldn't say that we "tolerate" black people would you?
Pontious - I think I'd be agreeing with you! I don't think I would have wanted to accompany anyone to a pole dancing club either, or hear about it afterwards! But this does prompt me to mention that the connection is continually made between homosexuality and sexual practise. I really, honestly, don't get this. Being gay has only one meaning - a sexual preference for a person of the same gender. Everything else, including every prejudice, dark mental image or media-fed belief, is purely in one's mind. It's quite absurd to embark upon any view of supposed sexual activities based on the person's sexual preference. What makes someone think that a straight person's activities are any less bizarre or repugnant? What makes someone think that the gay person you're looking at doesn't prefer a cup of tea to swinging from the chandaliers? It's nonsensical. As ever, homosexuality has "baggage" attached to the term which shouldn't be there. The media and religion have encouraged it to stick.
A2QFI - What a completely absurd thing to say. How on Earth is a gay person not the same as a straight person? Does he have an extra limb or something?!The comical aspect of that comment is that I can safely guarantee that you've probably met, talked-to and socialised with more gay people than you'll ever realise. Presumably, on the basis of your comment, you should have been able to spot the fact that they were/are gay though? Of course you didn't have a clue, nor should you have. That's the point!
Goudie - I agree that some people will never accept homosexuality. But thankfully, it's a simple fact of life that sooner or later they'll all be dead. In many respects, homophobia is a generational matter which will ultimately disappear. But I quite agree that you can't force anybody to accept anything. It's more a case of creating a proverbially level playing field where gay people are no longer the victims of prejudice, so that even the most bigoted of people might finally recognise gay people for what they are - people. As I said previously, I think the armed forces have done all they can do in this respect now, so it's simply a case of leaving things as they are, until attitudes and perceptions change - which they inevitably will (they already have of course).
Max - I think perhaps you're misinterpreting the definition of acceptance? As I've said, it's impossible to force anybody to accept anything. However, when necessary, of course it's important that some things are forcibly tolerated, although as I've also said, the term "tolerate" is slightly inappropriate for the reasons I mentioned. I presume you wouldn't say that we "tolerate" black people would you?
Pontious - I think I'd be agreeing with you! I don't think I would have wanted to accompany anyone to a pole dancing club either, or hear about it afterwards! But this does prompt me to mention that the connection is continually made between homosexuality and sexual practise. I really, honestly, don't get this. Being gay has only one meaning - a sexual preference for a person of the same gender. Everything else, including every prejudice, dark mental image or media-fed belief, is purely in one's mind. It's quite absurd to embark upon any view of supposed sexual activities based on the person's sexual preference. What makes someone think that a straight person's activities are any less bizarre or repugnant? What makes someone think that the gay person you're looking at doesn't prefer a cup of tea to swinging from the chandaliers? It's nonsensical. As ever, homosexuality has "baggage" attached to the term which shouldn't be there. The media and religion have encouraged it to stick.
A2QFI - What a completely absurd thing to say. How on Earth is a gay person not the same as a straight person? Does he have an extra limb or something?!The comical aspect of that comment is that I can safely guarantee that you've probably met, talked-to and socialised with more gay people than you'll ever realise. Presumably, on the basis of your comment, you should have been able to spot the fact that they were/are gay though? Of course you didn't have a clue, nor should you have. That's the point!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, I have to take issue with you.
I am hetero-male. I have shared living with Homosexuals of both genders and also had a close (non-sexual! ) relationship with a Transsexual.....so I think I'm qualified to chip in.
Biologically, the male and female of a species are designed to couple, pass seed and reproduce....THAT IS WHAT THE ULTIMATE REASON IS, FOR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ON THIS MORTAL COIL.
Same-sex coupling is abnormal-common, yes, normal, no.
I have taken no offence when a male has got a bit "too friendly"...."sorry mate , I bat for the other side" is all that's needed....no offence taken by either party.
I lived with a partner for over 15 years, we had 3 kids....the odd person is still taken-aback to find we never divorced BECAUSE WE NEVER MARRIED.
Our circumstances were not an issue,even friends who were privy to the fact initially treated the news with scepticism.
DISCRETION is the key, We never "pushed" our (lack of ) marital status and were accepted as a married couple.
Overtly gay "in your face" acquaintances who have "trusted2 me enough to "confide" their leanings, have been met with a hugely dramatic "WELL, I'd never have guessed!....well, actually , if you were any butcher, you'd be wearing a striped apron/ any more camp you'd be wearing a skirt" usually gets it across.
It's COMMON, NOT NORMAL....DON'T make it an issue and I won't.
and, yes, Queers/lesbians/blacks/cockneys /jocks etc. are all a target for a joke.
I am hetero-male. I have shared living with Homosexuals of both genders and also had a close (non-sexual! ) relationship with a Transsexual.....so I think I'm qualified to chip in.
Biologically, the male and female of a species are designed to couple, pass seed and reproduce....THAT IS WHAT THE ULTIMATE REASON IS, FOR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ON THIS MORTAL COIL.
Same-sex coupling is abnormal-common, yes, normal, no.
I have taken no offence when a male has got a bit "too friendly"...."sorry mate , I bat for the other side" is all that's needed....no offence taken by either party.
I lived with a partner for over 15 years, we had 3 kids....the odd person is still taken-aback to find we never divorced BECAUSE WE NEVER MARRIED.
Our circumstances were not an issue,even friends who were privy to the fact initially treated the news with scepticism.
DISCRETION is the key, We never "pushed" our (lack of ) marital status and were accepted as a married couple.
Overtly gay "in your face" acquaintances who have "trusted2 me enough to "confide" their leanings, have been met with a hugely dramatic "WELL, I'd never have guessed!....well, actually , if you were any butcher, you'd be wearing a striped apron/ any more camp you'd be wearing a skirt" usually gets it across.
It's COMMON, NOT NORMAL....DON'T make it an issue and I won't.
and, yes, Queers/lesbians/blacks/cockneys /jocks etc. are all a target for a joke.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm compelled to point-out that unless you're graced with access to some higher authority than the rest of us, I think you'll find that nobody (including the Church) has a clue as to why we're all here on this bizarre little planet. However I'd like to think (or at least hope) that our ultimate purpose is something rather more significant than simply reproducing! How pointless and depressing would that be if it were true?!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim - I was not suggesting or implying a physical difference between gays and others - I was suggesting that it is in the mind. If there is no difference, why do gays have perfectly reasonable and justified laws in place to protect t?em from verbal abuse and discrimination of any kind. No ofence is committed if I am called a 4 eyed Hetero SFAIK. If you really think we are all the same we shall have to agree to differ!