Gay recruitment drive by RAF

[Tim McLelland]

Brilliant stuff guys - keep it up, you're almost as fun as Big Brother

[An Teallach]

I guess you never made it as far as Saudi Arabia then, AT?

No, I haven't. Have gay Saudis started shooting people there?

I can't influence Saudi society. However, I've done my best to influence this one. It is worth remembering though that when Christendom was burning arians / gnostics / cathars / prods and tims by the hundreds of thousands, Islam was the repository of classical Western civilisation. Likewise, the Irish, who were killing each other in the name of religion until very recently, re-educated Europe after the Barbarian invasions. So maybe all hope is not lost. It seems at least the Kirk o' Jock Ministers and CofE Bishops have come round to our way of thinking.

You WILL allow us to invade your schools and indoctrinate your children

Personally, I would like to see the schools dealing with education. Hence preachers of hate should be barred from them (look up abomination in the dictionary). Do bible-bashers preach as vehemently against shellfish (equally as abominable as homosexuality in Leviticus): Damnation by Moules Mariniere, or are they worried the kids would be peeing themselves laughing? In any event, I'd rather see the kids told that it's OK to grow up and form whatever relationships suit them than see them molested by some priest.

"You WILL allow us to prance about on the streets and flaunt our lifestyle in your face!"

We did Gay Pride to death some time ago (I'm not actually a fan of that either).

You WILL hand over thousands of pounds of scarce taxpayers' money for us to further our own cause!

Actually, if you get off your God-bothering high horse and read what has been posted, you'd see that none of the gay folk on this thread are particularly chuffed at that turn of events.

Actually, I'm all for you believing whatever Middle-Eastern Mumbo-Jumbo you wish to believe. I'm for freedom of speech. I'm not for freedom to preach hatred. I'm also for people having the freedom not to have to 'endorse' homosexuality (I offered to speak on behalf of the Glasgow Firefighters who were disciplined for refusing to attend a Gay Pride parade, but their PC Nu-Labour Union was content to see them hung out to dry).

[Maple 01]

Tell me now, what if everyone decided to become gay?

I'm game, would they send me somewhere special? (Think 'Stripes')

When something is constantly in your face

I'd just like to thank the L&G community for showing such restraint in not using the 'ramming it down my throat' joke so far......

You boys never give up with the lesbian fantasies, do you?

Sorry AT, in my summary of 2,000 years of Christianity I forgot the pink-on-pink angle too - monasteries and convents, must have been the medieval equivalent to those Gay chat rooms you get on Sky....er, so I'm told.......

I suppose the bottom line is that for years the MoD spent millions conducting witch hunts against a group of people because of their sexual preferences, driving some to suicide along the way, this was, IMO, a bad thing. However, rather than acknowledging the mistakes of the past and letting everyone rise to their own level of incompetence on merit (the Peter principle) they set off to patronise those who are homosexual (and it’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’ for those too lazy to ‘pull birds’) and add the potential for division by giving money to Stonewall for advice and direction that may be seen as providing unfair advantage.

[Tim McLelland]

I was going to write a proper reply but the lure of Channel 4 and Davina McCall was too much to resist. When I glanced at the posting from TheInquisitor I could see that we'd obviously moved beyond reasoned argument, so I'll say no more, unless anyone actually has anything new to add? Otherwise, I fear we're merely exchanging insults which, whilst admittedly being good fun, is rather pointless; besides, it's distracting me from Big Brother...

[An Teallach]

Maple, you git. That'll be another bill winging its way to you for a coffee-splattered monitor.

[Flying Lawyer]

TheInquisitor

Another good post.
I disagree with several of your points, but you present your side of the argument well.
It's a pity Tim and An T don't have the ability to argue their points without resorting to childish and offensive comments about those with whom they disagree.


FL

[An Teallach]

Sorry FL but as religion is, by its very nature, irrational (requiring a child-like belief in the irrational) one is doomed to having irrational arguments about it.

As I am not only gay, but can't resist mussels, scallops, lobster and prawns; I suppose I may as well resign myself to being doubly damned for eternity.

Incidentally, I wonder if all those poor pilgrims who trekked across Europe to Santiago de la Compostela, prayed, munched some scallops and came away with the shells got damned for eternity. Seems a tad harsh, particulary on the straight pilgrims!

I'm game for an argument by PM. But calling me childish and offensive because I don't share your point of view seems to be exactly what you were accusing Tim of doing.

[TheInquisitor]

FL, thank you Sir!

AT,

Have gay Saudis started shooting people there?

Not that I'm aware of - I was alluding to the punishment metered out to gays in the kingdom - ie beheading. Although that was, admittedly, probably me reading your comments out of context!

Actually, if you get off your God-bothering high horse

Not god-bothering, old fruit - nor have I declared anywhere in this thread that I believe homosexuality to be amoral on religious grounds. I'm just attempting to counter some of Tim's wholly unnecessary vitriol towards "The Church" by pointing out that many millions of people DO object on the grounds of sincerely held beliefs, not ignorant bigotry - I believe there's a difference between the two.

I'm also for people having the freedom not to have to 'endorse' homosexuality (I offered to speak on behalf of the Glasgow Firefighters who were disciplined for refusing to attend a Gay Pride parade, but their PC Nu-Labour Union was content to see them hung out to dry).

Thank you - because that's all most of us want. Not to see you 'rot in hell' because of your proclivities, just freedom of conscience, to believe as we choose without threat of legal impediment. Surely that's reasonable?

as religion is, by its very nature, irrational (requiring a child-like belief in the irrational) one is doomed to having irrational arguments about it.

...in YOUR opinion, fella. Many, many millions find great comfort and guidance in the teachings of the world's religions. But that's your view, you're entitled to it and I respect it. I certainly wouldn't want to try and force you to endorse a particular religion, or religion at all.

Alot of the things in the bible that seem nonsensical usually have a good reason behind them - some shellfish, if improperly preserved or prepared, can cause serious illness if eaten.

Tim, my dear chap, I can't see where I slung an insult in my last post - I just asked for some refererrable evidence to support your claims. If you found that insulting, I apologise.

And just to be clear, the bible condemns homosexual ACTS, not homosexual preferences. The former is under your control, the latter isn't. In much the same way it condemns acts of (heterosexual) fornication - also not beyond one's own free will to control.

[Tim McLelland]

As I said I'm not biting to the proverbial bait; I'm all for an argument or a discussion but simply exchanging the same insults again and again is a tad pointless. There are other forums for that kind of carry-on.
I should mention one small point though; you can't make sweeping statements about what the Bible supposedly says or doesn't say. The point is, the Bible says pretty-much everything if you care to look at the right passages. Whilst the Church enjoys extracting the few snippets which appear to condemn gay acts, you have to remember that there are other chapters (Matthew for example) where homosexuality is described and condoned. You also have to remember that the Bible has been re-written more times than anyone can sensibly count, so whatever bits you care to hold-up for scrutiny, you have to accept that none of it bears any relation to the original writings. So I trust you can see how, to any non-religious observer, the whole business looks vaguely ridiculous. And as I've said previously, I don't think therefore, that you could blame any gay man for thinking (and saying) that the Church (of any persuasion) is absolute poison.

[Tim McLelland]

I take it that you have absolutely nothing new to add then?

As I've said, I'm not going to waste everybody's time by arguing about nothing.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Bet you do

[pr00ne]

ABIW,

Bet he doesn't.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I always wondered about your left wing pinko tendencies Pr00ne, are you saying you have access to "inside" information with regards to Tim

[Arthur's Wizard]

Whether or not you believe homosexuals should serve in the Armed Forces, I can't believe that anyone is actually using the Bible as a guidline to whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Why not use Viz or the Beano? They're certainly more factual!

[Tim McLelland]

Originally Posted by Arthur's Wizard

I can't believe that anyone is actually using the Bible as a guidline to whether homosexuality is right or wrong!

Unfortunately Arthur, that's the ridiculous situation us fags have always been in. Despite nobody having so much as one plausible reason as to why we should be regarded as being in any way inferior to the rest of society, we've been obliged to endure the continual denouncements of the Church, claiming that we're wrong, sick, evil, and so on, all on the basis of their favourite book. Naturally, we would find their rantings comical were it not for the fact that they still have influence in the corridors of power, hence their continual attempts to block any pro-gay (ie pro-equality) legislation, evey time it reaches the House of Lords. And that's just one example; the Church maintains a crusade against us in all walks of life, and yet whenever we make a stand to gain equality for ourselves and get rid of all manner of posionous anti-gay rhetoric, we then get howls of protest from people like The Insquisitor. It would be comical if it wasn't grotesquely sick.

Although we've thankfully reached a stage where the Chruch (at least in this country) is no longer taken seriously by the majority of citizens, and the Government has finally learned to simply bypass the spiteful wranglings in the House of Lords, it's still worth pausing to ask why the Church feels so strongly about us? All from a few vague, over-translated lines in a 2,000 year-old book? Nobody has quite worked-out what their problem is. The only conclusion we can reach is that the Church has identified us as the group who is most likely to have the guts to stand-up and show the rest of the country what hypocritical, nasty people run these religious organisations, and so they try to silence oir discredit us whenever they can. Our comfort is that no matter how they try, they're now either ignored or laughed-at. But make no mistake; the Church's anti-gay posturing has nothing to do with the Bible, even though this is their only tangible excuse; it's all about protecting their rapidly-dwindling power bases, which are threatened by groups that can see the Church for what it is. As usual, it's ultimately all down to politics.

I suppose in many respects you have to feel sorry for the average church-goer that wants to pursue his beliefs, and really doesn't have a problem with anybody, gay or straight, black or white, etc. Taking his teachings from the Bible more literally, he probably wants to love his fellow man (no, not in that way, get your minds out of the gutter!) regardless of what his leaders might tell him about the supposed crimes of homosexuality. Patently, the typical church-goer is being fed a line, there's no doubt about that. As I've said previously, there are endless sources of detailed research which illustrate that the Bible is, in fact, completely ambivolent about homosexuality, but the Church chooses to ignore this fact, and concentrate on a handful of throw-away lines which suit their agenda. Sadly, the congregations are being used for the Church's political agenda, as they have been throughout history.

But no matter; it's not as if any of this concerns us homos any more, as we've moved-on from that kind of blinkered prejudice, and although there are still some people like The Inquisitor who evidently still think we're a bunch of iron-fisted, politically-charged zealots that want to paint the country pink, the vast majority of right-thinking citizens in the UK have grasped that we're just like anybody else, and we want to be treated accordingly, instead of being treated as second class citizens.

It's in this respect that the MoD's initiative can be seen as ill-conceived. It's almost impossible to imagine what, if anything, Stonewall can advise. The MoD is already making great efforts to treat servicemen equally, regardless of their sexuality, colour or anything else. I don't suppose they handle everything as well as they might, but they're clearly on the right path. So what exactly, can Stonewall's expensive advice provide? Are they simply going to tell the MoD to "try harder"? In broad terms, there probably isn't much more that the MoD could or should do to treat homosexuals equally and fairly. We've probably already gone as far as we can down that particular path, but it is the wider aspect of attitudes and acceptance where there is still scope for change. But Stonewall can't do anything to change people's attitudes. What could they do? Put posters of gay men in every crew room and Mess with the caption "This is a gay man - he is a nice person"? It's nonsensical - people's perceptions and attitudes change through life experience and the wider experience of society in general, not through politically-charged bullying.

We already know that for the vast majority of servicemen, homosexuality isn't even an issue of interest, so, to coin a much-used phrase, if it ain't broke, don't mend it! Clearly, as has been seen on this thread, there are lots of guys who still have some issues about working with gay men (or even gay women), but in a service which has traditionally fostered the "one of the boys" image and actively endorses the kind of sniggering "poof joke" banter which (although rarely intended to cause offense) could obviously deter all but the strongest of people to keep his sexual preferences to himself, you can see that there's a long way to go. It's my belief that the attitudes and humour of the RAF's servicemen probably won't change at all, and many years from now there will still be endless jokes about "queers" going round every social gathering. But equally I'm sure the RAF will reach a stage where, in keeping with society as a whole, this kind of banter will not be anti-gay as such; it will just be good natured humour, and servicemen will be able to identify themselves as gay in just the same way that others can identify themselves as black, Indian, Chinese, tall, short, male, female, or whatever. Homosexuality won't even be an issue and surely that's got to be a good thing so that we can all just get-on with our lives?

The big mistake is when, even for the best of motives, one tries to push this process along. Paying Stonewall to get involved just antagonises people from all angles. But as I said previously, it would be fascinating to know precisely what the MoD is going to get from Stonewall in exchange for their lump of taxpayer's money. Pink Police to monitor conversations? Special "I'm Gay" badges for us homos and some "I'm Gay-Friendly" for everyone else? Three-view sillhouette diagram posters to show aircrew how to identify homosexuals? Blurry pictures of homos in the Recognition Journal? I have no idea, the mind, as they say, boggles.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

I thank you!

[An Teallach]

What a pity, I had a peek in here early this morning and I'm sure Proone's contribution was followed-up by another blood-curdling declaration of red-blooded heterosexuality by Mr Whizz. Strangely, Tim, it was only you that he appeared to damn for eternity; I seemed to get off with my soul unscathed. Perhaps on the basis that I've obviously actually read the bible, so there may be hope for me. If you do come back into the fray, Tim, perhaps you should throw in a few quotes: "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that. Just for safety’s sake – there are no atheists in a foxhole and all that.

FL:

Come the Dies Irae, could you do me a favour and make sure you're clearly identified by your Pprune handle as well as your professional name? Just so that, in the rush of souls for professional advocacy, I can make sure I don't pick you to represent me as I stand before the Lord in Judgment?

If your performance were to be anything like it has been here, your sole concrete contribution to my defence would be an opinion that "Religion should be kept out of it"! Not, if I may hazard some unlearned client guidance, a good defence strategy in the circumstances.

Now, with umpteen billion souls to get through in a day, I suspect that the Ineffable Almighty’s patience will be distinctly effable. As the fount of all evil, I think we can take it as read that Satan for the Prosecution (and all his little daemons) are bigoted, rude, intolerant, hypocritical, childish and offensive. They may even resort to ridicule and the odd rant. Though I’m no Doctor of Theology, I think it’s a safe assumption that they will take a dim view of the Church. It would therefore probably be best if you didn’t deploy the only other argumentative weapons in your armoury:

• Repeated assertions of Satan’s (and all his little daemons’) bigotry, rudeness etc.
• Reminders of your professional status as an advocate.
• Occasional critiques of the oppositions style of advocacy.
• Selective quotes of lists of Satan’s words and phrases.

Even Mr Whizz (albeit in his fleeting post of this morning) essayed a rant against Stonewall: Their main crime having been a despicable outing campaign against innocent homosexual hypocrites. In fairness to Stonewall, I think he was confusing them with Tatchell’s Outrage. However, from this we could at least infer that he didn’t think it was a good idea for the RAF to be giving public money to an unelected and unrepresentative pressure group.

Three cheers to Mr Whizz for at least obliquely addressing the question. Perhaps M’Learned Flying Friend would care to furnish us with an opinion on the actual question at hand? I dare say the Jury’s nipples are veritably bursting in anticipation of the Learned summing-up!

[An Teallach]

Inquisitor

many millions of people DO object on the grounds of sincerely held beliefs, not ignorant bigotry - I believe there's a difference between the two.

That's allright then. One would hate to think of folk murdering queers, prods burning tims, shi'ites shooting sunnis and good ol' boys lynching nigras because of frivolously held beliefs, wouldn't one?

[Wholigan]

The Inquisitor -

Not god-bothering, old fruit

How do you know he's old?????

[I_c_oldpeople]

Maybe with the non-promotion within the RN, an increased gay presence within the RAF, I wonder what stealth method of reducing the numbers they will use for the Army - Maybe they will allow them home long enough to see what living in the UK with their patners is really like?

Alternatively the gay presence in the RAF may be a positive thing. If they can simplify the worlds many and convoluted religions as previous, then JPA will be a feckin doddle for them