Hi. In the British Army there was no distinction between gay men and gay women. It extended to gay men, lesbian women and bisexual men and women, when we are talking about sexuality. I don't like the whole 'queer' terminology (because of how the word was used in the past, I hate the word) but that's just me and if someone chooses to define like that fine.
I know a lot of people lost pensions etc over this. At the end of the day I hope we get to a point where coming out isn't necessary.
This is from a long serving army sergeant:
"The armed forces no longer cares what you do in your own private life, so long as you are a dedicated individual to your job," added Sgt Smith-Weston. This is how I think it should be. It also had quite far reaching consequences. For example this man had to declare a criminal record every time he applied for a job (because of being gay):
Some of the consequences in that article are quite shocking and it's not that long ago. I think a lot of this explains why older people have more reservations about being able to be open about being gay compared to younger people. At the end of the day people are serving their country and in a lot of cases putting their life on the line. Their personal life should not matter unless it harms someone else.
Why are we even pardoning people who broke the rules or laws of their time, even if we think those rules were unfair?
Because laws change over time and they're sometimes wrong and unjust, and we recognise that. If you had been accused or convicted of something that was completely unjust or unfair - yet within the rules or legality of the time - would you not want to be pardoned/cleared or would you think oh, OK then, fine and just accept it? Even if that thing had far-reaching effects for you? Yet you thought the rule was wrong or disregarded a legality? We change things because they are wrong. There are many examples of this through history.
If a person is gay they must realize the realities of that situation and act accordingly. Yes most people aren't cool with it so shut up about it.
I never ever think about being heterosexual, it never crosses my mind at all, while gays constantly think about being gay. That is the problem most have with it. A parade.....really? Where is our heterosexual month at?
The thing is it comes up all of the time. Say, for example, the workplace. You need to exclude talking about every past relationship you've had, your partner, where you went on holiday, maybe venues, pubs, bars you've been to. Would you be OK with never mentioning, for example, your girlfriend? Isn't that going to stilt a lot of conversation if you can't mention her - what if they ask what you did last evening - you went to the park with your girlfriend but you can't say that. You'd be shutting off talking about a big portion of your life. Would you be OK with never mentioning her? You say you never think about being heterosexual but why would you, it's the default, it's ingrained through everything, I'm sure you've talked with friends about girlfriends or girls you fancy. I also think a lot of people don't realise how many time per day it crops up, mentioning anything that has to do with being heterosexual such as your wife, past relationships, anything on TV, etc. As far as comedyrelieff's comment about don't ask don't tell in the workplace, if that extends to everyone as he suggests does that mean heterosexual people can't mention their husband or wife? I don't get how that could work without massive blanks of things you couldn't talk about - you couldn't even talk about going on holiday, if you were getting married, lots of stuff.
The whole reason there was a parade and pride was to effect change and it was pretty successful. In fact reading about the history of pride and the parade is quite eye opening in terms of the changes that have happened. I don't want to be back in the dark ages with hatred for people who just want to be able to be themselves and be able to be with who they happen to fall in love with and live a normal life. Why is there so much hate? Even reading this thread, as someone else has pointed out, you can see it is necessary because what gay people want is simply to be able to live normally on a level playing field and some people are still not OK with that. Kelly Holmes couldn't, in the past, as she could've been court martialled and put into jail for being a lesbian. She talks about how the whole thing wrecked her mental health and this is while she was doing service for her country - in fact her MBE is for services to the British Army not anything to do with athletics. Things have now changed, and that's down to people taking it into the legal system, etc. It hasn't changed by them being quiet about it and accepting it. In fact through history change has often been effected by similar methods. Do you really begrudge her having a normal life?
If a person is gay they must realize the realities of that situation and act accordingly. Yes most people aren't cool with it so shut up about it.
I never ever think about being heterosexual, it never crosses my mind at all, while gays constantly think about being gay. That is the problem most have with it. A parade.....really? Where is our heterosexual month at?
So you have never been attracted to a woman? Are celibate by choice?
Dude, normal guy here, ok? Married with normal children.
If a person is gay they must realize the realities of that situation and act accordingly. Yes most people aren't cool with it so shut up about it.
I never ever think about being heterosexual, it never crosses my mind at all, while gays constantly think about being gay. That is the problem most have with it. A parade.....really? Where is our heterosexual month at?
Look man, if you still want to convince the readers of this thread that you aren't gay, the way to do that is to quit constantly posting about how straight you are. It's conspicuous and highlights what you are probably running away from. Make sense?
Only a non registered fool like you would not get my stance on this.
If a person is gay they must realize the realities of that situation and act accordingly. Yes most people aren't cool with it so shut up about it.
I never ever think about being heterosexual, it never crosses my mind at all, while gays constantly think about being gay. That is the problem most have with it. A parade.....really? Where is our heterosexual month at?
The thing is it comes up all of the time. Say, for example, the workplace. You need to exclude talking about every past relationship you've had, your partner, where you went on holiday, maybe venues, pubs, bars you've been to. Would you be OK with never mentioning, for example, your girlfriend? Isn't that going to stilt a lot of conversation if you can't mention her - what if they ask what you did last evening - you went to the park with your girlfriend but you can't say that. You'd be shutting off talking about a big portion of your life. Would you be OK with never mentioning her? You say you never think about being heterosexual but why would you, it's the default, it's ingrained through everything, I'm sure you've talked with friends about girlfriends or girls you fancy. I also think a lot of people don't realise how many time per day it crops up, mentioning anything that has to do with being heterosexual such as your wife, past relationships, anything on TV, etc. As far as comedyrelieff's comment about don't ask don't tell in the workplace, if that extends to everyone as he suggests does that mean heterosexual people can't mention their husband or wife? I don't get how that could work without massive blanks of things you couldn't talk about - you couldn't even talk about going on holiday, if you were getting married, lots of stuff.
The whole reason there was a parade and pride was to effect change and it was pretty successful. In fact reading about the history of pride and the parade is quite eye opening in terms of the changes that have happened. I don't want to be back in the dark ages with hatred for people who just want to be able to be themselves and be able to be with who they happen to fall in love with and live a normal life. Why is there so much hate? Even reading this thread, as someone else has pointed out, you can see it is necessary because what gay people want is simply to be able to live normally on a level playing field and some people are still not OK with that. Kelly Holmes couldn't, in the past, as she could've been court martialled and put into jail for being a lesbian. She talks about how the whole thing wrecked her mental health and this is while she was doing service for her country - in fact her MBE is for services to the British Army not anything to do with athletics. Things have now changed, and that's down to people taking it into the legal system, etc. It hasn't changed by them being quiet about it and accepting it. In fact through history change has often been effected by similar methods. Do you really begrudge her having a normal life?
I don't begrudge her having a normal life. Quite honestly, I couldn't care less how an individual lives their life. However, we have to stop acting like it is some great shock when anyone comes out. It's really not a big deal. That's why my reaction was a big fat yawn.
As far as restrictions on speech in the workplace, those are exactly the types of restrictions that are being imposed by state governments across the country. They spend countless hours training their employees in what pronouns they can and cannot use, what words they cannot use, what questions they can and cannot ask in an interview, etc. You can no longer say "It's been a crazy week this week" because the word "crazy" can be deemed as offensive by individuals with mental health issues. One of my relative's students identifies as a coyote, so he has to refer to him as coyote at school or he gets reprimanded by the powers that be.
"I'm pointing out that if every society in history surpressed homosexuality, there may have been some rational social reason for doing so".(quote)
That is the first argument I have read here for imputing rationality to prejudice. We can see that in every society there has existed bigotry in some form or other. I suppose that has a "rational" basis, too?
That's your belief that it's (historically) bigotry. Why do you think every society in history has been bigoted towards the flaunting of homosexuality?
Why has lack of tolerance generally extended anywhere? So what is your "rational" basis for historical intolerance towards homosexuality? How about religions in which an imagined Deity over two thousand years ago prescribed rules of behaviour? That is "rational"? Just as religion has lost its place of unquestioned authority in our lives, as society has become secular, so do we no longer require its prescriptions for how we should live. Freedom of choice. It's ok - it doesn't have to be yours.
"I'm pointing out that it's a slippery slope to pardon people for past crimes, as it allows anybody to believe that it's ok to break the law if they personally feel it's unjust and will be seen to be at a future point."(quote)
Perhaps you can show how pardoning people for acts that we now consider were not crimes, such as being homosexual, is leading people to commit crimes with an expectation of a future pardon. Which crimes do you have mind?
Maybe a homophobe might be more inclined to commit a hate offence if he's confident that the current laws against such crimes are unjust and temporary? What's to stop a paedophile, for example, lying about his criminal record check and working with children, if he convinces himself that he's simply breaking unjust rules? It's not about particular examples, it's about the undermining of the idea that the law should be respected, whether or not you personally think it is unjust or not.
As far as Dame Kelly is concerned, if she was prepared to lie about the fact she was gay in order to serve in the army, I wonder what else she might have been willing to lie about in order to get ahead in her career?
What you don't understand is that it is society that decrees what our laws should be, not the individual. However your insistence that an individual night commit crimes with an expectation of a pardon doesn't exist (with the exception of the former Trump White House. And that will not turn out well).
Most people want to be nice so as long as it doesn't really effect them they tolerate the gay agenda.
But.......do we ever see a known gay NFL QB, head coach, an NCAA head coach....nope!
What father is going to allow his son to play for a gay head coach?
People take.....they leave me alone I'm ok with it.....as acceptance when it really isn't.
I love how you’re not concerned about your son getting CTE, just having a gay coach. Clearly a much bigger risk.
Not concerned with CTE. ya don't live in fear if you plan on being a football player at all. Not unlike boxing or MMA, if you are worried about being hurt, forget that sport.
I don't want my son playing for a gay head coach, don't really want him around it, ok with you?
I love how you’re not concerned about your son getting CTE, just having a gay coach. Clearly a much bigger risk.
Not concerned with CTE. ya don't live in fear if you plan on being a football player at all. Not unlike boxing or MMA, if you are worried about being hurt, forget that sport.
I don't want my son playing for a gay head coach, don't really want him around it, ok with you?
“Don’t live in fear* if you plan on being a football player at all…
I love how you’re not concerned about your son getting CTE, just having a gay coach. Clearly a much bigger risk.
Not concerned with CTE. ya don't live in fear if you plan on being a football player at all. Not unlike boxing or MMA, if you are worried about being hurt, forget that sport.
I don't want my son playing for a gay head coach, don't really want him around it, ok with you?
Many fathers let their daughters play for male coaches. So what's the difference?
Not concerned with CTE. ya don't live in fear if you plan on being a football player at all. Not unlike boxing or MMA, if you are worried about being hurt, forget that sport.
I don't want my son playing for a gay head coach, don't really want him around it, ok with you?
“Don’t live in fear* if you plan on being a football player at all…
“Don’t live in fear* if you plan on being a football player at all…
*except for them gays”
Got it.
Not about fear it;s about disgust.
Not sure why you would be disgusted UNLESS you cannot get the thought of the man having sex with another man out of your head and this troubles you somehow. I wonder if the temptation for you to be with another man drives you crazy.
That's your belief that it's (historically) bigotry. Why do you think every society in history has been bigoted towards the flaunting of homosexuality?
Why has lack of tolerance generally extended anywhere? So what is your "rational" basis for historical intolerance towards homosexuality? How about religions in which an imagined Deity over two thousand years ago prescribed rules of behaviour? That is "rational"? Just as religion has lost its place of unquestioned authority in our lives, as society has become secular, so do we no longer require its prescriptions for how we should live. Freedom of choice. It's ok - it doesn't have to be yours.
I don't know what the social reason why every society on Earth surpressing homosexuality is, but I'm sure there must be one (or more). An easier question would be to ask why homosexuality has become so widely and quickly accepted in the West over the last 50 years. Presumably it has something to do with the (theoretical at least) divorce between reproduction and sex that occured in the 60's with the pill. You can't blame it all on a Sky God, as (despite what is often claimed, and here) homosexuality was not accepted in the ancient Pre-Christian/Islamic world.
I do find it odd that you find the moral values of humanity pre 1980's to be so vile, yet you are also of the opinion that every single athlete doped after 1980 or so, and nobody doped before. And you can't blame it entirely on money. As I pointed out here the other day, Herb Elliott was offered $20 million to turn professional in 1960 (in today's money) and didn't.