Gay Pride?
 

So the Army is taking part in Gay Pride and even running a recruiting stand at the event! Oh well it's legal these days I suppose. Next they'll be knocking the Berlin wall down, giving wimmin the vote and letting them fly!

You bl**dy fool, you said that out loud! Now you've put it in their heads they'll want it.:eek:

Just one more thing they try to ram down yer throat:E

They like it uppem Capt Mainwaring...

Apparently you crabs were there last year (i.e. before the Army).

Doesnt matter what your sexual orientation is when you get bayonetted/nuked/otherwise slotted though. Or which service you are in.

Its living with the fudge packers in peace time thats the hard part, being such a culture shock for most.

A closet glue-gargler came out on the day it was legalised in my unit a few years back. Instant billy-no-mates.

Salute, turn to the right, march out.

Careful Roadster280, you may let some of your more narrow minded prejudices show through.

Careful Roadster. pr00ne is not only an ex-crab but a lawyer as well. Talk about an officer with a map being the most dangerous thing alive ... imagine an officer, an internet connection and a law degree! Scary.

I had to laugh though. I assume ANAPROP is a crab, I assume he/she/it doesn't read RAF News (or is it now 'Wot U need 2 red'?) and the RAF's triumphant recruiting debut at last year's Gay Pride.

I think the Army's only shame here is being second.

Apparently they had a Jag on the float last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/...557304,00.html

Hasn't met Beags then have they :D

Sorry, can't think of a witty aside to add to that.......

Terribly sorry, didnt mean to offend anyone (except maybe the fudge packers)

Personal sexual preference is for women, two wives later, might just have found the right one this time.....

I left about 6 months after the ban was lifted.

Having spent 10 yrs regular, 5 yrs TA before that, it takes a little more than a political order from the MOD to remove the indoctrinated prejudices. In fact, come to think of it, it wasnt just indoctrinated, it was the LAW. No homosexuals in the forces, admin discharge if you were lucky, via Colchester if you werent.

To turn round one day and effectively say "these people we have taught you to hate over the years are now your friends" was hard to accept for most.

I dont really have any prejudice against these people, after all, I signed up to fight and die for them. It just went against the grain, thats all.

As for prejudice against the RAF, having been posted to two RAF camps in my time, it's just banter. We all have our jobs to do. If we all do them correctly, we will get the overall job done. Nothing wrong in a little rivalry though.

When I was in the Army, having been on two RAF stations, I later thought I wish I had joined the RAF. Not so sure now though, the RAF is having a hard time. And I am older, it was half a lifetime ago that I joined up.

Per Ardua Ad Astra, except there always seemed to be less Ardua in the RAF than the Army!

Green or various shades of blue, we all do/did an excellent job.

Load of bollocks !

Sexual orientation and personal choices are for the individual. One of the hardest (?) b:mad: s in my regiment was gay; it was well suspected but nobody gave a sh:mad: t because he was a soldier par excellence. Some of my proclivities in the bedroom with my girl friend would make your hair curl and make other practices look normal but I'm not telling ! Who cares ?

He did say to me once when he was well pi:mad: d that he loved me like a brother, which comforted me somewhat until he added the postscript that he used to s:mad: g his brother !! :}

I care. Please, do tell.

Confess all sinner.

Rev I. Tin

Bet my girlfriend will make your hair curl more than your girlfriend .... muhhahahaa.

Oh no, she was a he before the RAF let him become a she.

Pilgrim,

Not sure what I said that you think is bollocks. I was making the point that after holding such a blatant corporate antihomosexual stance, having laws against it, taking action to find and dispose of transgressors, to do a u-turn was going to be more difficult than a simple order. Anyone think it was an easy thing to bring in?

As for your regiment having a gay bloke, good for you. So did mine, as it turned out.

I was at our training school at the time, and our CO got all of us permanent staff in the lecture theatre, and gave us the news. He then opened to the floor for questions. Highly unusual, COs don't do question time!! I remember one old and bold Sgt asked what should he do if he sees a pair of men kissing on the dance floor in the NAAFI on a Saturday night when he is orderly sgt. No big deal if its a man and a woman, but men?? This is the point I was getting across.

Im not anti homosexual, I just found it difficult to accept at the time, and I still have reservations about it being the right thing in the military, given its history makes it what it is today. Should we then permit long hair? Its just a personal preference. Thats my point.

As for your bedroom practices, I don't want to know. Thats the way it should be for all, straight or gay. Anyway, whatever you get up to, I bet we have all seen worse porn.

Roadster, as an openly gay RAF officer, I have to say that comments like:
and:
are ineloquent, miss the point, and belie your ignorance of the prevailing views of the Armed Forces. Trying to justify it afterwards, in the face of mounting criticism, doesn't really change the fact that you made the comments in the first place. I don't find such comments offensive, just a little bit sad. So, the facts:

Meeting gay people is NOT a culture shock for most people joining today, and you're assuming that when gay men are in a dorm or 12x12 all we think about is seducing our fellow personnel. We don't. Like everyone else, we think about strangling the snoring techie in the next tent.

The ban was never enshrined in law, and required no legislation to be lifted - just a declaration from the leadership. The rule was an order, not a legal principle. This is why Parliament did not have to approve the policy change. But then, since Parliament contains enough woofters for it to be able to host Mr Gay UK if it so chose, I suppose it's a mere point of interest.

The Conservative Government stopped people being sent to Colchester for their sexuality in 1994. The only reason people went there was because joining and not declaring your sexuality meant that you were disobeying a direct order. Remove the order, and you remove the offence. Let us not forget that Mr Major was boffing Ms Currie at the time - surely in the light of such horrors you can forgive homosexuality?

Finally, comparing homosexuality with long hair is disingenuous and plain stupid. Who are you??? Being gay is NOT a choice. Being prejudiced IS a choice. :hmm:

The policy change was an overwhelming non-event, especially for new recruits. The young people joining now (I joined after the ban was lifted) simply do not have an issue with gay personnel. I can vouch for that, and I have friends who agree too. The simple fact now is that I can live my life without fear of invasive personal interviews concerning my sexuality, and without fear of dismissal for something I have no control over (big news... I didn't choose to be gay!). Most people honestly do not care whether the person they work with is gay, as long as they are professional.

Lest we forget, the Armed Forces want the best people from society to join our ranks. Banning people from joining on the basis of their sexuality risks banning some of the very people we need - intelligent, healthy, physically fit men and women with the desire and capacity to lead and prevail in difficult circumstances. Gay or straight, does it really matter?

In other news, I see that the gay lifestyle magazine Attitude has done an interview with serving gay officers from the RN, Army and RAF. Very good indeed - if it appears online I'll post a link.

Well posted, Tablet. However, I don't think you were the first homosexual person to post on this thread. Methinks some of the ladies here doth protest too much.

Nicely put Tablet...

Your comments about Roadsters choice of words was suitably restrained - personally, I would have just said he was a prat!

MarkD, the thought of what gay men do with one another indeed makes my hair curl. Or would if I had any..

BUT - and it's a big BUT - they do 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?

Beags

"Don't ask don't tell" only makes sense for 2 groups of people:

1. Self-loathing closet homosexuals.
2. Those who wish to keep gay servicemen and women liable to blackmail.

I generally find that this whole subject elicits a reaction of rampant disinterest among well-adjusted, heterosexual people.

I confess to being rather intrigued that you seem to be the only man in the country for whom the repeal of the previous imbecilic policy was of such import that you can remember the day of the week upon which the decision fell.

OK - I guess I misinterpreted the idea behind 'DA - DT'. I thought it meant, and as you quite rightly say most well-adjusted people would probably agree, that the question of the orientation of others should be of absolutely no interest to anyone else.

After 'Black Monday', 'Pink Wednesday' was merely a way of reminding people that the previous policy had irreversibly changed and was not intended to be in any way derogatory or humiliating. It was a term which others more senior than me adopted at the time.

Commerce refers to the 'grey pound' and the 'pink pound' with respect to the disposable income of particular groups in society in a similar vein. Apologies if it caused offence.