MilitaryForums.co.uk

Look at that Sod at Deepcut, busted but retained by the Army even though they knew he was as Queer as a Nine Bob Note. I hope a few heads roll ref that little "Mates are Mates" load of crap that put young innocent men within the grasp of for want of a few better words "a Farking Poof and Bully" with rank on his side.

guilford was a prime example for the young WRAC's, nearly all the instructors were bent and used to see how many young girlies they could get to change, aparently it was almost classed as a sport between them.
young impresionable girls who look up to and fear the NCO instructors who in turn try to take advantage of them in a sexual fashion is naughty to say the least unlike my days at the RMP depot and all the young less impresionable girlies who looked up at the handsome young CPL lol ahhhh memories are made of this

Well, you've already got homosexuals in the military. Always have, always will. So the issue is the conditions under which they serve. It's always been ironic to me that the U.S. military bans homosexuals who have revealed their homosexuality -- except during wartime, when they are kept in service. This tells me it's not an issue of fighting effectiveness.

Now, if I were homosexual and serving in the military, even under a tolerant policy I don't think I'd run around advertising the fact. Long time ago I had a friend who was gay and in the military and I stopped by and said hi. He was living in a squadbay with 50 other guys. Not the place you'd want to advertise your status, and he didn't.

These Homos are the exception, not the norm. They are anomalies, and should be treated as such.

Being in the armed forces is not a democracy, it is a strict heirarchy. As such, any disturbances that can affect morale should be rooted out and done away with.

What about white soldiers who don't like black ones?

are u drawing a moral comparison between black people and homos?

Being black and being homo are two examples of non-merit issues that nevertheless inspire prejudice among fellow soldiers. I make the comparison on that basis, not on a "moral" one. We know that blacks can fight well. We know that homos can fight well, too, or the military wouldn't keep them in service during wartime as they do. So the "anomaly" would seem to be not the factor itself, i.e., being black or homo, but the reaction of fellow soldiers. Unit cohesion was the stated reason for segregating blacks, and it's now the stated reason for forbidding self-acknowledged homos -- except, oddly enough, while the bullets are flying. I don't think "morals" are part of this issue.

Snyder,

You can't have it both ways. Having black people in white units in this centuries past wars WOULD of been bad for morale. Not because there is something inherently morally wrong with a black person, but because they were different. There is a VAST sea of difference between the color of your skin and who you choose to f**k (scuse the crudeness).

Unfortunately you can't draw universal and historical comparisons here between colored people and fags. Military history brings you to a dead end.

The Roman Legions used multiple tribes from different regions. Islamic armies used multiple tribes from different regions. The Crusading armies used multiple ethnic people. Napoleans armies were FULL of mercenaries.
The British Army has used Gurkhas and Indians long before your father was born.

Only within a TINY smidgen of history and people (primarily US and Nazi Germany) has the color of ones skin been an issue within the armed forces. On the US hand, this was due to the whole history of slavery and oppression of blacks in America. In Nazi Germany, this was due to a radical political philosophy. Both are NOT the historical norm.

On the other hand,

Homosexuals in armed forces have NEVER, I repeat NEVER been the accepted norm. I GUARANTEE you that you can 100%, unequivocally, not prove me wrong.

This is because, it has been recognised, throughout history, that homosexuality is a sick and twisted abombination.

Only in the late 20th century has it been argued (by western countries only mind you) that it is acceptable for a man to put his penis in another mans anus. This is in large part due to the relative peace and safety that western countries have, and the decadence that comes with it. If these were times of great peril and necessity (which they may well become) you would/will find that arguments such as yours would be thrown out the window for the sake of necessity.

I notice you haven't argued about lesbians. Is this because of the universal straight man's rule: Whatever two women do with each other in the privacy of their own house is fine, as long as they make movies? Anyway, it's interesting that the U.S. hasn't won any wars since it integrated the military. I don't count the first Gulf War because that was something between a battle and a turkey shoot.

Snyder, i have not brought up lesbos because in my mind, they fit into the same category as homosexuals...ie...perverse. I was assuming this would be obvious, i suppose it is not to you, well...there it is.

I mentioned it because whenever anyone talks about homos they cite male/male behavior, especially penis in the rectum. Which, by the way, is far from universal among homos and far from unknown among heteros. In any case, if all this stuff matters as much as you say it does then why do the U.S. military make a point of retaining acknowledged homosexuals during wartime? Wouldn't you figure they'd want 'em outta there right away?

Redhand wrote: . . . Homosexuals in armed forces have NEVER, I repeat NEVER been the accepted norm. I GUARANTEE you that you can 100%, unequivocally, not prove me wrong.

This is because, it has been recognised, throughout history, that homosexuality is a sick and twisted abombination.

Only in the late 20th century has it been argued (by western countries only mind you) that it is acceptable for a man to put his penis in another mans anus. This is in large part due to the relative peace and safety that western countries have, and the decadence that comes with it. If these were times of great peril and necessity (which they may well become) you would/will find that arguments such as yours would be thrown out the window for the sake of necessity.

. . . How far into Ancient History would you like me to go? Lets start with the Spartans, would you care for a history lesson about these fighting men? or are you already aware that they were bisexual at the very least? and if you want another fact, 300 Spartans + 2500 Greeks, fought 250,000 Persians at the Battle at Thermopylae. The out come was every single Spartan soldier died, but they took 25,000 Persians with them.

All I can say is if that's how gay men fight when backed into a corner, I want to be on their side.

As for worrying about getting hit on by a gay person, I'd be just as flattered if is was a boy or girl doesn't mean they have any less integrity doesn't mean that they are just going to stand there and let you get shot for fear of rumbling their combats. Get over yourselves, gay people are as much of a productive part of society now as they always have been.

<<< Falls of soap box

Lol, I knew someone would attempt a shot at the spartans!

The Spartans partook in homosexual acts (sometimes) in the same spirit a long time convict might. Spartan society and culture was intrinsically focused on the male for his physical capabilities. Very often, if a female baby was born, it was taken up onto a mountain or hill top and beheaded or left for dead. This is much the same as the Chinese and their modern use of aborting female babies. The spartans wanted only males, who were raised from young lads on to learn how to be warriors.

So what do u have with an all male camps? Same thing you get in prison, some homosexual activity. Based out of the pure urge that they had to stick their 'you know what' in something.

This, in no way makes them anything like the things you see in gay pride parades and whatnot.

Redhand wrote:Lol, I knew someone would attempt a shot at the spartans!

The Spartans partook in homosexual acts (sometimes) in the same spirit a long time convict might. Spartan society and culture was intrinsically focused on the male for his physical capabilities. Very often, if a female baby was born, it was taken up onto a mountain or hill top and beheaded or left for dead. .

Redhand I don't have time just this second, but surfice it to say what you've just said about Spartan women is absolutly untrue, the women were certainly not beheaded, or exposed, however any child that looked weak or skinny was. The Spartans were not intrinsically focused on the male babies because one of the Spartans fear was of never having enough numbers to keep the helots under control. Anyway as I've said, I'm adrift as usual ...

Redhand wrote:Being in the armed forces is not a democracy, it is a strict heirarchy(sic). As such, any disturbances that can affect morale should be rooted out and done away with.

Redhand, you are correct. HMAF are not a democracy, although we serve our democratic lords and masters as directed by HMG and the Defence Mission. You are correct to assert that actions likely to affect morale should be stamped out as early as possible.

There is a JSP (JSP763) covering just this kind of anti-social behaviour - it protects against harassment, bullying and helps to enforce any activity incompatible with the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. Thankfully it is the combination of these which protects current service personnel from displays of the intolerant attitudes of the vocal minority such as have been displayed on this thread.

Current recruitment policy states "to project the Naval Service, Army and Royal Air Force as careers of first choice for all people, irrespective of their race, ethnic origin, religion or gender and without reference to social background or sexual orientation"

and Diversity Policy "The Armed Forces respect and value every individual’s unique contribution, irrespective of his or her race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, social background and sexual orientation, and seek to enhance their operational capability by maximising that contribution."

The underlined phrase is the most important - enhancing operational capability. Forget whether the individual is gay, black, Scottish or female - MOD isn't interested and therefore, if you're serving, you are not entitled to make it an operational issue which will affect morale.

What if I`m gay, black, Scotish and female
(Loz, does he mean you )