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
I think the question of what % of the population or HM Forces is homosexual is largely irrelevant given that human rights should never depend on having enough people like you to form a protected group. Sexuality in general is not a group of boxes to put people in but more of a continuum - some people are pretty much at one end or the other, some happily in the middle - rarely is someone 100% gay or straight. This is the time of the metrosexual, of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Regrettably both lobby groups and bureaucrats do like counting heads.
Personally were I CAS or CDS I would not be seeking the advice of Stonewall in this matter. I would be asking An Teallach or Tim McLelland or polomint. But that wouldn't make for as good a NuLabour press release, would it.
Say one thing for Tatchell though, he's sound on Mugabe.
Personally were I CAS or CDS I would not be seeking the advice of Stonewall in this matter. I would be asking An Teallach or Tim McLelland or polomint. But that wouldn't make for as good a NuLabour press release, would it.
Say one thing for Tatchell though, he's sound on Mugabe.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always-
I do indeed see your difficulty but you've rather answered your own points I think. You know how you relate to other women so surely you can see how a gay fellah is no different to you, except that his sexual interests are probably directed to persons of the same sex (or both sexes if he's greedy). It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eyeing-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?
I think the essential difficulty is that there's this notion that gay men are all secretly harbouring lustful thoughts at all the innocent straight guys they might happen to work with. Rest assured that this isn't what goes on in our heads. As I've already said, we're not sexual predators, deviants, axe murderers or child molestors; we're just men the same as you except we're attracted to other men; nothing more and nothing less. I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?
I can see that if you're not used to being in the company of gay people it might be difficult to know what to think or how to react but have no fear; we're just dull, average, down-to-earth people who do all the same things that you do. Everything else is, by definition, a figment of your own imagination and preconceptions and nobody can do anything about that other than yourself
Flying Lawyer, I'm happy to discuss anybody's views but I reserve the right to say what I think about the Church and I'd say it again and again! The Church has been responsible for the misery, distress and even deaths of more gay people than I could even try to count. Even today, world-wide hatred against gay people is initiated and encouraged by the poisonous and hate-filled teachings of the Church. They have absolutely no right to foster this kind of vile hatred and yet we're obliged to listen to it.
As most servicemen would doubtless agree, we'd all live happier lives and thousands of servicemen would be alive were it not for religion. But that, as they say, is another subject entirely!
I do indeed see your difficulty but you've rather answered your own points I think. You know how you relate to other women so surely you can see how a gay fellah is no different to you, except that his sexual interests are probably directed to persons of the same sex (or both sexes if he's greedy). It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eyeing-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?
I think the essential difficulty is that there's this notion that gay men are all secretly harbouring lustful thoughts at all the innocent straight guys they might happen to work with. Rest assured that this isn't what goes on in our heads. As I've already said, we're not sexual predators, deviants, axe murderers or child molestors; we're just men the same as you except we're attracted to other men; nothing more and nothing less. I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?
I can see that if you're not used to being in the company of gay people it might be difficult to know what to think or how to react but have no fear; we're just dull, average, down-to-earth people who do all the same things that you do. Everything else is, by definition, a figment of your own imagination and preconceptions and nobody can do anything about that other than yourself
Flying Lawyer, I'm happy to discuss anybody's views but I reserve the right to say what I think about the Church and I'd say it again and again! The Church has been responsible for the misery, distress and even deaths of more gay people than I could even try to count. Even today, world-wide hatred against gay people is initiated and encouraged by the poisonous and hate-filled teachings of the Church. They have absolutely no right to foster this kind of vile hatred and yet we're obliged to listen to it.
As most servicemen would doubtless agree, we'd all live happier lives and thousands of servicemen would be alive were it not for religion. But that, as they say, is another subject entirely!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunte turn of phrase old chap! (or chapette!) I didn't want to make serious comment on this thread but I have been driven to it! Most of us don't even think that our comrades may be gay - the thought doesn't enter our heads. Don't ask don't tell is the moral here and if you are raving camp then I guess you are not the sort of bloke that would fit in anyway as really girly girls don't stay long either - the ones that succeed are 'one of the boys'.
I've no problem with gays of either gender (male or female - just for clarity). I remember several comrades who were forced to leave in the early 90's because they were gay. I had a lot of professional respect for those chaps (Dave and Simon). However, those were the rules at the time. It was the RAF's loss however.
That siad, it doesn't mean that we should actively recruit from that group at risk of discriminating against others - after all, the MoD is an equal opportunities employer - unless you are white, straight, non crippled with all your faculties - then you are scuppered and go to the back of the queue!
rant ends
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, it looks as if everything that can be said has now been said... repeatdely!
FlyingLawyer and Ratty - I haven't been "harping" - just answering postings that were directed at me. As for being a bigot, then perhaps you should check the definition - simply highlighting the Church's outrageous position doesn't make me a bigot, I think you'll find... unless you're actually suggesting that my comments concerning the Church are inaccurate?
Vage - I think you might need to try discriminating between a gay man and a "raving camp"... Exactly how you imagine that a gay man wouldn't be "one of the boys" is very hard to establish and of course it presupposes that these "boys" are all straight which may well be (and often is) far from the actual case. Just because someobody says he's straight doesn't mean he is, as I'm sure you're aware.
Polikarpov - I take your point but I did say that a gay man would be "no more likely" to be "eyeing you up"; that isn't to suggest that it's not going to ever happen but it's just not very likely. I just don't quite see why this oft-mentioned fear of "mixing" with a gay man should be such a worry for even the most homophobic of people. Homosexuality isn't catching and a gay man is no more likely to find you any more attractive than a woman is, so on the assumption that a straight man is entirely capable of having a close friendship or working relationship with a girl, what possible difference would there be if it was a gay man instead? The bizarre notion seems to be that gay men are somehow perceived as sexual predators that are harbouring dark desires to molest every straight man they see. Given that women patently don't do this, I don't quite see why gay men should be expected to either!
MarkD - you mention a very interesting point which is inescapable. Very, very few people ere either 100 percent gay or straight. Just about everybody on the planet falls somewhere between the two, even if they might insist otherwise. There are (as buddhists are keen to point-out) many shades of grey, and anyone who defiantly claims to belong exclusively to one camp (if you'll excuse the expression) or other is either deluding himself or everyone else... or both!
However, I digress - again! This is a very interesting thread and even though we seem to have drifted-off into atagents of unimaginable proportions, it's interesting to note that we all agree that the MoD's attempts to attain politically correct status are both ill-conceived and foolish. Nothing new there then!
FlyingLawyer and Ratty - I haven't been "harping" - just answering postings that were directed at me. As for being a bigot, then perhaps you should check the definition - simply highlighting the Church's outrageous position doesn't make me a bigot, I think you'll find... unless you're actually suggesting that my comments concerning the Church are inaccurate?
Vage - I think you might need to try discriminating between a gay man and a "raving camp"... Exactly how you imagine that a gay man wouldn't be "one of the boys" is very hard to establish and of course it presupposes that these "boys" are all straight which may well be (and often is) far from the actual case. Just because someobody says he's straight doesn't mean he is, as I'm sure you're aware.
Polikarpov - I take your point but I did say that a gay man would be "no more likely" to be "eyeing you up"; that isn't to suggest that it's not going to ever happen but it's just not very likely. I just don't quite see why this oft-mentioned fear of "mixing" with a gay man should be such a worry for even the most homophobic of people. Homosexuality isn't catching and a gay man is no more likely to find you any more attractive than a woman is, so on the assumption that a straight man is entirely capable of having a close friendship or working relationship with a girl, what possible difference would there be if it was a gay man instead? The bizarre notion seems to be that gay men are somehow perceived as sexual predators that are harbouring dark desires to molest every straight man they see. Given that women patently don't do this, I don't quite see why gay men should be expected to either!
MarkD - you mention a very interesting point which is inescapable. Very, very few people ere either 100 percent gay or straight. Just about everybody on the planet falls somewhere between the two, even if they might insist otherwise. There are (as buddhists are keen to point-out) many shades of grey, and anyone who defiantly claims to belong exclusively to one camp (if you'll excuse the expression) or other is either deluding himself or everyone else... or both!
However, I digress - again! This is a very interesting thread and even though we seem to have drifted-off into atagents of unimaginable proportions, it's interesting to note that we all agree that the MoD's attempts to attain politically correct status are both ill-conceived and foolish. Nothing new there then!
The bizarre notion seems to be that gay men are somehow perceived as sexual predators that are harbouring dark desires to molest every straight man they see. Given that women patently don't do this, I don't quite see why gay men should be expected to either!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must have a rather unusual dictionary then because, unless I'm very much mistaken, I (along with millions of other gay men and women) have been tolerant of the Church's outrageous and hate-filled outbursts and teachings all my life although, inexplicably, it seems that the Church isn't required to be similarly tolerant of my lifestyle. Go figure...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
Perhaps it's me not making things clear but I'm trying hard to get my head round your reply to me.........
"It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eying-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?"
How do I know that for sure, as by stating no it's no more likely that said gay guy is eying me up implies it's as equally likely that said gay guy is in fact eying me up and as I said before if said gay guy is really into short, chubby older guys than how do I know...........and I feel uncomfortable with that thought. Please tell me you finally get it.
"I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?.................nothing until you consider the following I suppose..........if I thought even for a moment, whether she drunk or lucid, that the lady in question had any sort of sexual feelings for me, and despite my age and physique it has been known to happen I would be chuffed to little mint balls and may or may not to let nature take it's course dependant on the situation but if said gay guy had given me even the remotest hint of his desires I would have been off out of there like a shot.
Perhaps it's me not making things clear but I'm trying hard to get my head round your reply to me.........
"It's like I've already said, a gay guy is no more likely to be eying-you-up than a girl is and if he or she is looking at you, why worry about it? Likewise, somebody looking at you doesn't mean they want to get you into bed does it?"
How do I know that for sure, as by stating no it's no more likely that said gay guy is eying me up implies it's as equally likely that said gay guy is in fact eying me up and as I said before if said gay guy is really into short, chubby older guys than how do I know...........and I feel uncomfortable with that thought. Please tell me you finally get it.
"I presume you hang-out with girls so what's the difference if you're hanging-out with a gay bloke?.................nothing until you consider the following I suppose..........if I thought even for a moment, whether she drunk or lucid, that the lady in question had any sort of sexual feelings for me, and despite my age and physique it has been known to happen I would be chuffed to little mint balls and may or may not to let nature take it's course dependant on the situation but if said gay guy had given me even the remotest hint of his desires I would have been off out of there like a shot.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there are any "sexual predators" (gay or straight) surely they would have been er... dismissed, wouldn't they?
I work along side one, and if reports are to believed, and in answer to your assertion..........NO, why would they be?
I work along side one, and if reports are to believed, and in answer to your assertion..........NO, why would they be?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do "get it" but I'm just not entirely sure how you reach the conclusions that you do. Okay, you don't know anything for sure, nothing in life is certain, but I was trying to emphasise that a guy is no more likely to be looking at you inappropriatrely than a girl is. It's that simple.
Then you really confuse me! You say that if you were aware of any attraction from a woman you'd be suitably chuffed, and yet you wouldn't be similarly flattered if you received the same attention from a man. That I really don't understand. It's not as if either party is expected to act upon the attraction so why not take it as a compliment if you get it? It would be rather like the many times when I've been on the receiving end of attention from girls - it's quite flattering so I don't see it as anything to worry about.
Fundamentally, your discomfort seems to come from the notion that either all gay men are certain to be harbouring lustful thoughts about you (which patently isn't going to be true) and that any that do, are going to expect you do presumably jump into bed with them or something equally demonstrative. It just doesn't follow. That's honestly not the way it is! Okay, there will always be exceptions to the rule but my only honest advice is to suggest that you simply think of a gay man as being "a woman who you don't facy" and relate accordingly. Surely that would work for ya?
Then you really confuse me! You say that if you were aware of any attraction from a woman you'd be suitably chuffed, and yet you wouldn't be similarly flattered if you received the same attention from a man. That I really don't understand. It's not as if either party is expected to act upon the attraction so why not take it as a compliment if you get it? It would be rather like the many times when I've been on the receiving end of attention from girls - it's quite flattering so I don't see it as anything to worry about.
Fundamentally, your discomfort seems to come from the notion that either all gay men are certain to be harbouring lustful thoughts about you (which patently isn't going to be true) and that any that do, are going to expect you do presumably jump into bed with them or something equally demonstrative. It just doesn't follow. That's honestly not the way it is! Okay, there will always be exceptions to the rule but my only honest advice is to suggest that you simply think of a gay man as being "a woman who you don't facy" and relate accordingly. Surely that would work for ya?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to know when the adjective "tolerant" could be used with the following.........."I must have a rather unusual dictionary then because, unless I'm very much mistaken, I (along with millions of other gay men and women) have been tolerant of the Church's outrageous and hate-filled outbursts and teachings all my life although"
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it should for heaven's sake! The Church is supposed to represent the spiritual well-being of the community isn't it? What gives the Church any right to pronounce on such matters? What gives the Pope any right to stand on a world stage and denounce homosexuality just because he and his cronies say so? As far as I'm aware, the Pope hasn't received so much as one email of support from God, so until he (and the Church) refrain from passing judgement on me and millions of others, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't reciprocate. That's only fair isn't it?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're clutching at straws now aren't we?
That's rather like suggesting we should restore our belief in the Flat Earth because we've not received communicatiuon from God to contradict the notion! My point (as you must know, but I assume you're merely arguing for the sake of it) is that the Pope and Church have no right whatsoever to make judgements on anyone for any reason. They have no authorisation from anyone and yet they are still clinging to their power bases in a hopeless attempt at retaining political influence, even though figures inevitably show that interest in the Church continues to fall year by year across the UK. If there was so much as one tiny shred of eviodence that the Church had some real authority from some real and tangible higher being, then people might take them a little more seriously. But all they have is their belief and faith. That's fine, as I've said I'm no bigot and any church-goer is welcome to pursue his beliefs as far as I'm concerned. But to pronounce on the morals of gay men and women? None of their damned business I'm afraid, therefore I think we're entitled to denounce the Church's activities just as voiciferously as they do ours. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to adopt (no gags about adopting unusual positions please )
That's rather like suggesting we should restore our belief in the Flat Earth because we've not received communicatiuon from God to contradict the notion! My point (as you must know, but I assume you're merely arguing for the sake of it) is that the Pope and Church have no right whatsoever to make judgements on anyone for any reason. They have no authorisation from anyone and yet they are still clinging to their power bases in a hopeless attempt at retaining political influence, even though figures inevitably show that interest in the Church continues to fall year by year across the UK. If there was so much as one tiny shred of eviodence that the Church had some real authority from some real and tangible higher being, then people might take them a little more seriously. But all they have is their belief and faith. That's fine, as I've said I'm no bigot and any church-goer is welcome to pursue his beliefs as far as I'm concerned. But to pronounce on the morals of gay men and women? None of their damned business I'm afraid, therefore I think we're entitled to denounce the Church's activities just as voiciferously as they do ours. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to adopt (no gags about adopting unusual positions please
)
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 4th Jan 2007 at 23:41.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone noticed the silent majority now seem to have found a voice and the vociferous minority are a little uncomfortable with this prospect
Where exactly is this "silent majority" ? Beyond the pages of the Daily Mail I mean...
Where exactly is this "silent majority" ? Beyond the pages of the Daily Mail I mean...
Mint with a Hole
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: blighty
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
I understand that you are trying to voice up the gay side of an argument, but even I had to chuckle at a couple of things. Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural. To imply that its 'wrong' for them to be uncomfortable to get the same attention from a gay guy..is well, simply ludicrous. No, I dont have an argument or anything for it, it's just simply the world we live in, but, I dont get horribly offended by it..no scratch that I dont get offended by it at all.
The church thing may be suited for another thread though methinks.
Ta,
Polo
I understand that you are trying to voice up the gay side of an argument, but even I had to chuckle at a couple of things. Of COURSE straight guys are going to love attention from ladies, its natural. To imply that its 'wrong' for them to be uncomfortable to get the same attention from a gay guy..is well, simply ludicrous. No, I dont have an argument or anything for it, it's just simply the world we live in, but, I dont get horribly offended by it..no scratch that I dont get offended by it at all.
The church thing may be suited for another thread though methinks.
Ta,
Polo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where exactly is this "silent majority" ? Beyond the pages of the Daily Mail I mean...
You spout on about bigotry and intolerance....Sir, you are the most bigoted and intolerant person I have seen post on here in some time.
Christianity, along with all of the world's other major religions, denounces homosexual ACTS as a sin. Why should a religion change itself just to accomodate your views? The whole point of a religion is that, should you wish to follow it, you adapt YOUR lifestyle to suit it's rules - if you try to adapt the religion to suit your lifestyle, it loses its meaning altogether. This is perhaps why Christianity has been in decline in the western world - by trying to 'diversify', it loses any notion of moral authority or leaderdship. Notice that a similar stance has NOT been adopted by Islam, which is flourishing in comparison. If you don't like the rules of a religion, then don't follow it - simple. You have no right to try and change it.
You claim that 10% the population are gay, and that that is 'enough' people 'doing it' for it to be considered 'natural' or 'right'. Well, lumping together all the world's religions that condemn homosexuality accounts for around 90% of the world's population. So your 10% are 'right', and the other 90% are just wrong or bigoted? How do you work that one out?
And whilst we're on the subject of '10%' - it is amazing just how much (almost all) of what the LGB lobby puts out as 'gospel' comes right back to Alfred Kinsey - a self-confessed homosexual paedophile, whose research subjects consisted almost entirely of incarcerated paedophiles, most of whom had already declared their homosexuality. His work should have been entitled "Sexual Behaviour in the Incarcerated Homosexual Paedophillic Male", the conclusion of which (10% of Incarcerated males at some time engage in homosexual acts) would hardly have been surprising, even if they were all straight! Kinsey is also the source of the now legendary 'sliding scale of homosexuality', which unsurprisingly is also utter bollocks.
And almost all claims for homosexual behaviour in animals can be traced right back to Bruce Baghemil, who claimed in his 'Biological Exuberance...' book to have 'observed and catalogued' homosexual behaviour in over 1500 species. Curiously, with absolutely no indepedent coroborrating evidence - plenty of drawings, but no actual photographs...strange.
I can see that if you're not used to being in the company of gay people it might be difficult to know what to think or how to react but have no fear; we're just dull, average, down-to-earth people who do all the same things that you do. Everything else is, by definition, a figment of your own imagination and preconceptions and nobody can do anything about that other than yourself
know what you're saying about the ultimate "straight guy's horror story" of finding himself in a shower with a gay guy (or something equally horrifying) but it's a myth; a gay bloke is no more likely to be eyeing-up your body than anyone else would and let's be er, straight about this, would it matter if he did? That would be like assuming that any girl that looks twice at you wants to get you into bed. The other point you really do have to consider is that you're making the sweeping assumption that unless you're informed to the contrary, all those guys you might already share a shower cubicle are all straight...
You say that if you were aware of any attraction from a woman you'd be suitably chuffed, and yet you wouldn't be similarly flattered if you received the same attention from a man. That I really don't understand.
As for you, An Teallach, I and many others on this forum are beginning to tire of your 'ladies who doth protest too much' line, used against anyone who dares to challenge your view of the world. The fact is, as Billy Whizz stated earlier, the vast majority of straight men are deeply uncomfortable with homosexuality - and that HASN'T changed, despite your fantasies to the contrary. The ONLY thing that has changed is that expressions of such opinions are made a little more carefully nowadays. The majority of personnel in the RAF, at least, don't have a problem working alongside a gay man who is competent at his job. But that DOESN'T mean that they won't talk about his sexuality in a negative way out of his earshot.
You are obviously very bitter about being discharged from the Service - but you were discharged because you broke the rules in force at the time. Accept it, and move on.
And both of you, please stop being so narrow-minded, accept that others do not think as you do, and moreover have the right to not think as you do. The world is not as you think it is.
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and yet, oddly enough, the vast majority of straight men are deeply attracted to lesbianism
So it can't be same sex relationships that bother them ... er I mean us
===
What? Not even if you were Martin Luther?
So it can't be same sex relationships that bother them ... er I mean us
===
If you don't like the rules of a religion, then don't follow it - simple. You have no right to try and change it.