| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A gay day for the Army - perhaps | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 25. July 2008, 08:44 (447 Views) | |
| saundthorp | Friday, 25. July 2008, 08:44 Post #1 |
|
I couldn't help feeling this was a sad day for our armed forces when I read this in our local paper.
They have even got General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff trotting out "inclusive speak" (A member of Stonewall probably wrote it for him) The General said,
Allowing gays into the UK armed forces has always struck me as odd since we could have opted out of the Human Rights legislation that made us take hom osex ual soldiers. I believe the French do not allow gays into their armed forces. Why?, because they used the opt out-clause in the Human Rights Legislation. As a matter of interest, the Romans had gay soldiers, but they confined them to special legions. |
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
 |
|
| John Sweeney | Friday, 25. July 2008, 09:19 Post #2 |
|
Glad to see some civilised measures working through. Of course, gay men and women have served and continue to serve in the armed forces and many of them have done so with distinction and gallantry as have many of their heterosexual comrades. In recent years all the services have recognised this and sought to remove the old prejudices which have disfigured the services attitude in the same way as they have disgraced society's attitudes until comparatively recently. Christianity's compassionate approach is winning through in this area at least. John |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 25. July 2008, 10:19 Post #3 |
Administrator
|
John, there are times when service personnel need to snuggle up close, in freezing conditions, to share body warmth. I do not think it right for male and female heterosexuals to do that together, let alone a mixture of heretoxsexul and hom osex ual men and/or women. There is such a thing as temptation - and there is such a thing as embarassment. |
  Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Patrick | Friday, 25. July 2008, 10:30 Post #4 |
Administrator
|
Aside from my own views onhomosexuality, I fail to see why they have to make known their sexuality within the Armed Forces. If they kept their sexuality to themselves there would be no discrimination. I feel that they bring discrimination upon themselves. If they want equal opportunities, in my view, they should keep their mouths shut. |
  
| |
|
|
|
| saundthorp | Friday, 25. July 2008, 11:03 Post #5 |
|
Well put Partick, my thoughts entirely. |
|
Truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. Error is still error even if everyone believes it. (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) | |
|
|
|
| Paduan | Friday, 25. July 2008, 11:32 Post #6 |
|
This sort of situation and the responses to it irritate me. I find that a lot of the time people's natural and understandable distaste for a particular thing lends itself to over-reaching itself into a very uncharitable prejudice. Does a man or woman's sexual orientation have any bearing on a secular job that they do? The army and the other services are there to fight (whether or not the fighting it actually carries out is morally justifiable is another matter) - it doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the job that they do whether a soldier prefers one gender over another... and frankly, in a survival situation where shared body warmth becomes vital, I would have thought that the last thing on anyone's mind would be nookie, not least because to actually engage in such activities would inevitably result in a greater dangerous loss of body heat by virtue of the removal of clothing based insulation! I think it's also important to stress that two people (of whatever gender) together who are hom osex ual need not automatically end up in bed together simply because of their orientation, in the same way that opposite genders do not automatically result in attraction. Notwithstanding my own vocation in life - or perhaps even taking more account of it, in fact - I don't automatically look at every woman that comes into my field of view as a sexual possibility. I cope just fine in what would otherwise be the company of an eligible female! Why would a person of another orientation fare any worse? In respect of this 'gay day' of course, I don't see why a soldier's personal orientation is any more worthy of promotion than, say, that of the cashier at my bank. One receives the same service regardless. To that end I can't see the point of this 'gay day' any more than I can see the point of 'pride parades' (which make my skin crawl) nor would I see any reason to promote a 'straight day' in the army either. Yes, there is an issue of morals in the private sphere and the promotion of immoral acts in the public sphere, especially where morals are intrinsically bound up into the 'job description' (i.e. teachers of religion, adoption, priesthood, etc) but it is beyond me why we should care about banning people from a particular secular profession where their orientation has no impact on the services or duties they provide. Where do you stop? If everyone was entitled to prevent a person of an alternative orientation from working with them or in a job, then there'd be a whole class of people destitute, and like them or not, they are entitled to live their lives free from that sort of persecution. The Church even says so! |
| I have a blog! - dotCatholic | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 25. July 2008, 11:49 Post #7 |
|
Administrator
|
Paduan, speaking from experience as an ex-service woman, even when hom osex uality was illegal, no service personnel were court martialled or discharged because of their orientation. I dealt with some administrative work in connection with a court martial, of a man accused of hom osex ual activities. The problem was, propositioning of other men who didn't want to know. Occasionally he had too much to drink, and his behaviour towards men of junior rank was unacceptable. There were romances, marriages, and the occasional unwelcome approaches between men and women, and we girls felt one of our number had let the side down badly because of her promiscuity, but the sexes had separate accommodation, no sexual activies or flirtation took place in barrack blocks, so we (men and women) could literally feel safe in our beds. Active hom osex uality will lead to problems in living accommodation. It is not about the job you do, it is about a community. Compare it to a person in a religious community - orientation no problem, activity is not acceptable (apart from the moral issue).
They would keep their mind on the job (fighting) when on active service. A young Royal Marine told me the problem is when they are on exercise, not active service. He did not want to snuggle up close to a bloke who was well known for chatting up "anything in trousers" provided the anything was male. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Paduan | Friday, 25. July 2008, 12:26 Post #8 |
|
Surely then, no matter what the orientations or genders involved, unwanted attention becomes sexual harrassment, and attention that interferes with duties (whether exercises or active service) is a dereliction of duty and both would be an offence under military law? If the man who chats up anything in trousers forces his attentions on someone who he knows does not appreciate it, then he's at fault (i.e. harrassment) and there needs to be disciplinary action. I see no reason why the homeosexual man who doesn't chat up anything in trousers - in other words who acts honourably - should be unable to participate in the army. Everyone should practice self-restraint, no matter who they are! |
| I have a blog! - dotCatholic | |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 25. July 2008, 13:11 Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
It would indeed! What about attentions that do not interfere with duty? Unwanted sexual attention, not on duty and not in living quarters, is no different from unwanted attention in civilian life (I speak of flirtation, not assault). Living in single sex quarters, one was free, there, from unwanted attention from the opposite sex, and should be free from being chatted up by members of the same sex. The barrack block is home.
I am not sure that unwanted flirting is an offence. What about the man who flirts with a woman who is not interested? She would hardly report it, saying "on yer bike" is effective, so is it an offence for male to flirt with male, assessing whether it is welcome? That is why activities, not orientation, are the problem. One does not say "I refuse to serve with heterosexuals of the opposite sex because they might find me attractive." If that were the case, a rather dishy young airman would not have had the pleasure of flirting with me, and being privileged to be married to me. (Who's a lucky boy, then?) I cannot see why homosexually orientated persons may not serve - provided they keep their distance. In the end it comes down to observing rules of gentlemanly conduct. There is no need for people to flaunt their sexual orientation. Can't they try being subtle? |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Friday, 25. July 2008, 13:20 Post #10 |
|
I agree with a lot of what Paduan says. I think the pride parades and special days occur because people are reacting against centuries of persecution. Liberalising measures in the end will bring the need for such marches and days to an end. Rose, while respecting your first -hand knowledge of service life, I think you will find that significant numbers of officers and enlisted ranks have been dismissed from the Armed Forces for their sexual orientation--and I mean for their hom osex uality alone, not for any act associated with it.. Many more lived in constant fear of being found out or denounced. John |
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 25. July 2008, 14:13 Post #11 |
|
Administrator
|
There was quite a witch hunt, during my time. I knew people who were thoroughly investigated - those who were thrown out, it was due to relationships, not orientation. The problem was, at the time, hom osex ual acts were a criminal offence for all, including civilians. A person with anything to hide was susceptible to blackmail, therefore at risk of being approached, to divulge secret information. It was not discriminatory, the same rule applied to heterosexuals having extra marital affairs, and not wanting to be "found out" by their wives or their peers. An Air Vice Marshall (equivalent to General rank in the Army) had to leave because of an extra marital affair. I am not divulging here anything I should not, it all came out in the divorce case, which was widely reported. In seven years service I never knew of one instance of a person being dismissed because they "appeared to be" hom osex ual. Some people who were assessed as low risk (for security purposes) were transferred to non sensitive duties. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Michael | Friday, 25. July 2008, 16:29 Post #12 |
|
Going to burst a few peoples bubble here, there is no place for hom osex uals in the forces, and if any gay does join and get bullied well tough what did he expect? |
|
|
|
| Paduan | Friday, 25. July 2008, 17:38 Post #13 |
|
I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
My emphasis. Bullying is simply not acceptable and would be a sin. |
| I have a blog! - dotCatholic | |
|
|
|
| Michael | Friday, 25. July 2008, 19:34 Post #14 |
|
Thank you from the quote from the catechism, but the reality is young men will not react kindly to a gay man in their ranks, picture the scenario a known gay looks in the direction of a male in the showers even in all innocence and he will get a kicking simple as, I would have done the same in my younger wilder days, not nice i know but the barracks is not the seminary, we used to fight sometimes at the drop of a hat, |
|
|
|
| Patrick | Friday, 25. July 2008, 19:52 Post #15 |
|
Administrator
|
Exactly, Michael. It does, and can happen. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » | |
12:32 PM Nov 24