EuroPride 2006 - RN's uniformed contingent

[NozzyNozzer]

I should like to congratulate the RN on finally seeing sense and allowing gay matelots to march in their no.1s at this year's EuroPride in London. I believe this is good PR and sends out the message that the Service can change with the times. I am also proud that the Andrew has taken the lead over the Junior Services (Army & RAF) here. Let's hope we see more initiatives of this sort showing the Andrew is inclusive in other areas too. I'm proud of you guys!

I remember a number of messmates over the years being kicked out because they were gay, despite their discretion. These guys were usually excellent at their job (one, an oppo, was a much better RO1 than me) and no different from us lass-loving matelots other than they fancied blokes.

 

[Shakey]

I've got nothing against it, I just don't want it rammed down my throat.

 

[Maxi_77]

Perhaps you could have phrased that slightly better.

Peter

 

[Shakey]

:wink:

 

[NozzyNozzer]

I've got nothing against it, I just don't want it rammed down my throat.

As the missus says, don't slag something off until you've tried it! :lol:

There is another point here, you might like to consider. This is where wives insight can be so beneficial: have you ever thought about how it feels for a homosexual to have heterosexuality rammed down their throats,by everyday actions you and I do which we don't think twice about but which gays have to think twice about? Remember that until 2003 gays faced imprisonment and 7-10 years on the sex offenders register if they were caught holding hands or kissing in a public place and a member of the public complained or a policeman spotted them. This usually led to suicide before it reached the local Magistrates Court! This means that there are still people on the register who were put there for consensually kissing another adult man in a public place. What would we think if we had been subject to laws like that until 3 years ago?

The other thing that has been pointed out to me is how women feel about being portrayed as sex objects all the time by, er, matelots...

 

[Lingyai]

I have got nothing against homos but don't think they should be minceing around in No 1s at a pride rally. There is a time and a place for wearing your uniform and the brown hatters ball aint it (IMHO). Being part of the pride mob is OK but for fcuks sake do it in yer civvies, a dress or a tutu but not military uniform (fcuking tom hanks has a lot to answer for)....

If Jack wanted to march in a BNP rally, CND rally or animal rights march in No 1s would it be allowed? No! Time and a place gentlemen.
As I said before, no offence to the queers, good on ya just keep it under your hat when representing the armed forces.

 

[NozzyNozzer]

I have got nothing against homos but don't think they should be minceing around in No 1s at a pride rally. There is a time and a place for wearing your uniform and the brown hatters ball aint it (IMHO). Being part of the pride mob is OK but for fcuks sake do it in yer civvies, a dress or a tutu but not military uniform (fcuking tom hanks has a lot to answer for)....

If Jack wanted to march in a BNP rally, CND rally or animal rights march in No 1s would it be allowed? No! Time and a place gentlemen.
As I said before, no offence to the queers, good on ya just keep it under your hat when representing the armed forces.

I doubt we would want to recruit Christian-Nationalist fundamentalists, pacifists or animals rights people as our activities tend to be the antithesis of what these groups represent. If we are to ask gay matelots to keep their sexuality 'under their hat' then it would be reasonable to ask straight matelots to do the same to avoid causing offence to Muslim and Christian matelots - the exposure of female flesh being a case in point ( ).

Would you or I find it acceptable to be banned from kissing our wives, holding hands, etc, or marching at a Remembrance Day that celebrates those who sacrificed their lives for the rest of us whilst for years the forces have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the existence of gay servicemen on the Front? This is no less iniquitous that the failure of Prime Minister Thatcher to acknowledge those disabled during the Falklands Campaign in 1982 in the victory parade in London later that year, by hiding them out of sight. Perhaps we ought not to march in the Remembrance Day (RD) parades in uniform or wearing any old boy badges unless they are fully inclusive and address the injustices of the past - writing as someone who has marched in 17 RD Parades to date.

Oh yes, and most gays I've encountered don't mince - else they'd have been spotted when they joined up! :lol:

 

[Lingyai]

Would you or I find it acceptable to be banned from kissing our wives, holding hands, etc, or marching at a Remembrance Day :

No we would not and the majority of the population wouldn't have a problem with watching us do that, but despite modern tolerance most people still find blokes kissing and cuddling in public nasty. It is natural for a man and a woman to be together and it is not for 2 men. Like it or not that is true. I am sure that most pride marches I have had the misfortune to see around the world most certainly does involve a whole lot of minceing. Funniest I saw was whilst working in France, the fags from a local nightclub were wearing t shirts printed with the clubs name......
"The Cock Pit" :lol:

 

[NozzyNozzer]

Would you or I find it acceptable to be banned from kissing our wives, holding hands, etc, or marching at a Remembrance Day :

No we would not and the majority of the population wouldn't have a problem with watching us do that, but despite modern tolerance most people still find blokes kissing and cuddling in public nasty. It is natural for a man and a woman to be together and it is not for 2 men. Like it or not that is true. I am sure that most pride marches I have had the misfortune to see around the world most certainly does involve a whole lot of minceing. Funniest I saw was whilst working in France, the fags from a local nightclub were wearing t shirts printed with the clubs name......
"The Cock Pit" :lol:

The Cock Pit? Isn't that a club frequented by wafus? :wink:

Yes it "natural" for a heterosexual man and woman to be together, but it is not natural for people who are not innately straight to pretend that they are, just as it would would not be natural for you or I Lingyai to enter into a relationship as a pair of straights! :lol:

Many Christians and Muslims also find men and women kissing and cuddling in public offensive, but that does not mean we should curtail it. For many Muslims, Britain's third largest religious group after the humanists/athiests, having men and women parading or serving in uniform together is equally offensive. Should we cave into conservative pressure and segregate the Andrew by gender, religion, etc?

There are things I personally dislike intensly, such as the public celebration of religion, which in my view should be confined to the closet where it belongs... but one needs to be more tolerant in a modern, multicultural society... :wink:

 

[Chalky]

If we are to ask gay matelots to keep their sexuality 'under their hat' then it would be reasonable to ask straight matelots to do the same to avoid causing offence to Muslim and Christian matelots - the exposure of female flesh being a case in point ( ).

Would you or I find it acceptable to be banned from kissing our wives, holding hands, etc, or marching at a Remembrance Day that celebrates those who sacrificed their lives for the rest of us whilst for years the forces have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the existence of gay servicemen on the Front?

As I understand the current MOD policy, open displays of affection to either gender are a no-no. This was brought in as part of the acceptance of varied sexualities. The official MOD line is that, be you heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, your sexuality is your own and should not be shown on company time, as it were. A sensible policy, I would argue.

It does surprise me then that with this in mind, uniformed service persons have been authorised to attend rallys, gathering and the like in such a manner.

It's not like being Gay or Bisexual is something that can be issued from the stores, nor was it acquired by Smart Procurement through the Defence Procurement Agency.

It's one thing to be present at such events with personnel there, homosexual or heterosexual, in a recruiting capacity, but to be uniformed and touting your gay-friendly credentials seems counter productive when the ideal environment that we should be encouraging is that we simply don't care what sexuality you are.

Gay pride parades are an important tool in the ongoing fight against prejudice, but sexuality is an individual thing and adding a corporate tag to it is counter productive and, I feel, misses the point.

 

[stumpy]

I think this march was a good idea. Is there a bit hypocrasy in the air when people say they don't want to see gays in uniform flaunting their sexuality? Because from the straight point of view, wasn't that the whole point of rig runs??

 

[dondon]

I've got nothing against it, I just don't want it rammed down my throat.

Brilliant Shakey , I think if I was a woman I'd be a Lesbian , lovely :roll: :lol:

 

[geoffrey]

I think this march was a good idea. Is there a bit hypocrasy in the air when people say they don't want to see gays in uniform flaunting their sexuality? Because from the straight point of view, wasn't that the whole point of rig runs??

I can't get too excited about the whole thing, especially as every civvie assumes that all matelots have all gone in for a bit of light botting every now and then. My one point would be that this particular Pride rally seems to market itself as a "campaigning" rally, and is therefore political in nature (unlike some of the other, purely decoratively minceing rallies). I was always under the impression that, quite rightly, Crown Servants shouldn't engage in political activities, especially in uniform, and that is why the RAF (amazingly!) and the Army prevented their personnel from marching in rig.

 

[NozzyNozzer]

I think this march was a good idea. Is there a bit hypocrasy in the air when people say they don't want to see gays in uniform flaunting their sexuality? Because from the straight point of view, wasn't that the whole point of rig runs??

I can't get too excited about the whole thing, especially as every civvie assumes that all matelots have all gone in for a bit of light botting every now and then. My one point would be that this particular Pride rally seems to market itself as a "campaigning" rally, and is therefore political in nature (unlike some of the other, purely decoratively minceing rallies). I was always under the impression that, quite rightly, Crown Servants shouldn't engage in political activities, especially in uniform, and that is why the RAF (amazingly!) and the Army prevented their personnel from marching in rig.

Campaigning is nor necessarily political Geoffrey, otherwise most medical charities would not be able to register as such and campaign for change.

The march as I understand it is partly campaigning but mainly to raise the visibility of gays and to celebrate homosexuality, etc, rather than the tendency in the past to be ashamed of being different. I should like to see something similar by disabled people which I would certainly participate in - to show the public that being disabled does not mean that you should be seen as a burden or infantalised by society. It would be nice to see disabled matelots in uniform as well, and not just at Remembrance Day parades and other self-limiting, stereotyping, events.

Oh, I'm getting so bloody minded as I'm getting older and progressivly more gaga! :lol:

 

[geoffrey]

Oh, I'm getting so bloody minded as I'm getting older and progressivly more gaga! :lol:

No you're not Nozzy - you're confounding the stereotype of matelots of a certain era being rabidly anti-homo. Good on yer! I mean it