Over at`Chez Nous` I recently posted a short piece on a short piece that caught my eye recently.
I read several similar such debates, with a military leaning, during my time at “Neptunus Lex” and was, as usual, fired up and fascinated by the comments which were particularly interesting for me, being a damn redcoat and not of these shores albeit a patriotic-but-jolly-friendly visitor. My last little discussion on military aid to the civil power was an interesting exercise in perspective and I found all the comments very useful reading. So, please cast your mince’s* over it, reproduced below, and let me know if there are similar league tables in your neck o’ the woods.
Cheers.
*cockney slang
Who’s best?
During my 32 years police service I worked alongside many homosexual officers, but for 99% of the time I didn’t actually know it and 100% of the time I didn’t care. Most of them kept their sexuality to themselves, it was a generation thing and I know times have changed but, I reiterate, most of my former colleagues’ sexual orientation and preferences (with a few exceptions) was kept very much to themselves. Had I known, it would have made not a bean of difference to me whatsoever. So, I am a little undecided about what to make of the following story, from a Constabulary newspaper:
Hampshire Constabulary
has maintained its position
as the UK’s top police force
for lesbian, gay and
bisexual (LGB) people.
We came 14th in this year’s Stonewall
Workplace Equality Index, which ranks
organisations on their commitment to
LGB employees.
Chief Constable Alex Marshall said: “I
applaud the achievements of the
Stonewall Workplace Equality Index and
all the organisations that enter into it.
“The fact the competition has
become much tougher is testament to
the progress the country as a whole is
making in improving the quality of life
for lesbian, gay and bisexual people,
both in the workplace and in our
communities.”
Top of the index for 2012 was Ernst
and Young followed in second place by
the Home Office.
I had no idea there was a competition.
The Lexicans 
The *BIG* problem with the LGBT following is they want to be out of the closet and in everyone’s face. Decent people find their life style repugnant and don’t want it in their faces. However, the fear of being branded H8tful, among other less savory labels, leads them to cower in fear. Personally, I couldn’t care less. If they wanna be queer, and throw it all back in the face of God, that’s their business, just quit trying to force me to absolve you of any of the myriad mental illness you demonstrate, or give you my blessing for your perversion. It ain’t normal, and never will be normal, and I’m not going to endorse it. If you want to be that way, just leave it. I won’t ask, and you won’t tell, and we’ll leave it like that.
But, they won’t leave it like that because they are sick puppies and want us to endorse them as normal. They are utterly willing to bring society down around their ears if they don’t get what they want. Of course, they will bring it all down around their ears if they do get what they want, so it’s a lose-lose for all.
Amen, QM
Live and let live, I say. But as QM said – it’s forcing those who might not agree with who they are that is wrong. Civil unions are enough; why force the issue of marriage? I just don’t get that.
Okay, ’tis an interesting topic you’ve chosen for a Lexican debate HD. First off, I have to say I am extremely uncomfortable with public displays of, let’s call it “affection”. Though that’s too broad. I have no problem with people hugging, holding hands, etc. What I’m uncomfortable with is people being all over each other in public. Whether it’s hetero or otherwise. So, that being said, some in the, ahem, “gay community” are way over the top. Outrageous in the extreme. It seems to me that it’s not a question of someone’s personal preferences in the bedroom, it seems now that it’s more of a political movement. There are some who want to flaunt their behavior, essentially cram it down peoples’ throats as it were. It’s all very “in your face”. Commitments to groups of people based on their sexual orientation by certain organizations leaves me wanting to, quite frankly, vomit. I fully believe in equal rights and fair treatment, but really? Actively making a big deal over something like “Gee, look how committed we are to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and all their ilk!” It’s political correctness carried to an extreme. What people do in the privacy of their homes is none of my business but things are going way too far these days.
At my place of business one day, I came to work to find a “gay” version of the American flag hanging outside one individual’s cubicle. I won’t attempt to describe it, suffice to say, myself and the other military veterans in the office were outraged. Revolt was in the air. We did manage to restrain ourselves however and a simple comment to management was sufficient to have the offending item removed from the premises. But as a former Navy buddy of mine remarked, “How dare they? Some of my friends died while serving under the American flag. How dare some weasel make this parody of Old Glory and hang it where I can see it?” The man was so mad he was literally shaking.
Bottom line is, things have gone too far in the Western world. To me it’s just part of the continuing attempt to destroy our way of life. In the US now-a-days, it’s all about being a victim or being oppressed. If you’re a traditionalist or a conservative, you’re the enemy, you’re the oppressor. Poppycock!
Okay, I’m climbing off of my soap box now. I’m becoming incoherent, if I’m not there already. If this is how some organizations claim success, then I pity the people who rely on them. And yes, I see it in my own company but not as bad as it used to be. Perhaps there is hope.
One final thought. Another buddy of mine, former Army, upon reading another flyer about some upcoming “gay” event pondered how much support we would get from the company if we wanted to form a special interest group which he called the “MWLBBA”. I, looking most puzzled, said, “The what?” He explained, MWLBBA is the “Men Who Like Big Breasts Alliance”. Yeah, I’m sure that would fly, but at the end of the day, what’s the difference?
Hmmm, I had no idea it was a competition either. I’m betting it doesn’t become an Olympic sport though. Hmmm, then again . . .
mark
… all right STOP THAT! Silly… and a bit suspect I think.
OK…I’m by and large conservative, but I very well may be among the more ‘socially liberal’ contingent of Lexicans when it comes to this.
I could care less if someone is gay or not. I am of the mind that some people are just ‘wired’ differently, and they are what they are. I could also care less if they want to get married, with all the legal entitlements therof. I think people too often lump together marriage the Sacrament, with marriage the legal term. If some has an objection on someone getting married in their church, or their marriage being recognized by a religion based on the Sacrament of marriage and what that means, I understand that. That is perfectly within your right to worship as you see fit. But in the legal sense, I don’t see how if two dudes that have been a ‘couple’ for 25 years, and one wants to make a decision for the other in a hospital setting for example, or get his property upon death, or enter into a legal contract as a couple, affects me. It doesn’t, that I can see.
I don’t care for the ‘in your face’ displays of affection, either. I don’t want to see two homosexuals going at it, but I wouldn’t want to see some of the traditional couples I see at my local Wal-Mart doing that, either.
As far as gays in the military, don’t care about that either. They have been there since there was a military, they were there while I was in, and they’ve been there since. I’m sure I served with some, hoisted beers with them at the club, and had no idea at all. As long as they do their job, and don’t do anything that a straight person would get in trouble for, again, I really don’t care.
I guess what it comes down to for me is if everyone keeps their business to themselves, and doesn’t push it on anyone else, live and let live.
“…and doesn’t push it on anyone else….” is the operative phrase. They have every intention of shoving it in our faces, however. If the issue is being able to care for each other, for example, such things are easily taken care of without even civil unions. Power of Attorney has been around for a very long time.
Such is not the issue, however. The issue is approval and blessing and the populace has revolted on that issue so far, and it’s entirely natural. Even the ignorant non-Christian savage knows homosexuality is deranged, so it isn’t even a matter of religion.
The legal system adopted the term marriage from the Church, not the other way around.
Todd – I think you will find that I too am a tad more socially liberal than many of the Lexicans. I do depart on the marriage thing though; civil unions give all the rights in the legal framework. I am bemused at the demand for more than that these days, as I well-remember the demands for civil unions just a few short years ago. That made sense, at least to me. As to the rest of what you said – I agree.
Hogday … This is an interesting debate topic, and one which has implications which are not immediately evident. Years and years ago, when I read The Female Eunuch, by Germaine Greer, she pointed out something which I had not considered previously; namely, that if gays were granted all of the same “rights” as “straight” married people in a country like England, rights to ownership of property, pensions et al, the country would shortly go bankrupt, what with paying out death benefits, etc. You Brits, like most of Western Europe, have always been polite about other people’s quirks and preferences, and there are certain long-standing organizations in which your citizens participate which could be said to encourage gay behavior. Young boys and girls are often sent to boarding schools at a very young age, where they are placed in dormitories which allow or conceal such behavior. [I must admit that some of my “evidence” is gained from books like Tom Brown’s Schooldays and Kipling’s “Stalky & Co.” the story of his years at United Services College, a book I loved reading as a child.]
Mostly, I became aware of my own naivete on these subjects, through books like Germaine’s and Kipling’s. But still, there is nothing new about homosexuality in Europe or America. It’s been going on a very long time.
I had read a charming book a few years ago, entitled The Ladies of Llangollen, about two young Englishwomen of the Regency period who joined forces to live together without male companionship. One of the ladies was well-to-do, the other one not and was fleeing a very arbitrary family. The ladies lived together the rest of their lives, and eventually, English society accepted them as a couple.
I will say that I do feel that some of the present day uproar is generated in hopes that “the government” will give the homosexuals more and more generous proerty rights and entitlements.
Germaine may be right, to a certain extent. After all, she’s smart as well as shocking.
Marianne
Hi Marianne,
there was a very interesting and unexpected socially shifting spin-off in England in the aftermath of WW1. The country had lost a greater part of an entire generation of its men of marriageable age. There was also the phenomenon of “Pals” Battalions too, where entire villages and communities went into the same fighting units which added to this huge hole being gouged from the social demographic. The manning of these units in that way was later stopped, thank goodness – think `Saving Private Ryan` to the power of ten – but even without the Pals battalions the end result was that communities across the country were denuded of their menfolk, some totally, and even those who survived were damaged goods.
5 years ago, during the course of my job, I met the author of a book on the `publicity circuit`. It was about the difficulties of life for the women of that period, trying to find a `normal` life without men during that aftermath. A very interesting lady. I bought her book. Many of the things you and other commenters touched on came to the fore. It was a very moving account of womens lives totally skewed. They made do in many and varied ways.
Hogday … The period after the end of World War II was also strange for those of us who had lost our men in the war. I lived in Milwaukee at the time [I was 17] and when I would walk around my neighborhood on Sundays with my father, so many many windows gleamed with Gold Stars. In college, there were fewer young men than usual, and more veterans on the G. I. Bill. So our women in America were leading skewed lives also. The dating and marriage patterns were very different. I had one beau, an American pilot, who had lost a leg when he subbed in to fly as a navigator with an English crew while he was on leave. [This was in 1948 when I was in Columbia U.] I still felt strange and somewhat unreal about losing my ski-trooper fiance when he was killed in Italy on Mt. Belvedere in 1945, and the young former pilot was soothing and kindly.
Many of us young women had stories of loss to tell and we felt remote from the usual behaviors of undergraduates. But I think that the imbalance of the sexes was even greater in Britain, since you all had been in the fray far longer than we Americans were. And you were more sharply affected by diminished food supplies than we were in the United States. We did have strict rationing of meat, sugar, butter and dairy products, as well as of clothing and fuel for our cars. But we were altogether better off food-wise than those folks in England. And your rationing lasted quite a long time after the official ending of the war. My parents were members of The English Speaking Union chapter in Milwaukee, and we had signed up to take an English child for the duration. He was a child from Bristol, John Williams, and he was to come by ship to America. At the last minute, he couldn’t come because he contracted measles, but my Mother, who was aware of the food shortages in Britain, took it upon herself to ship ‘care packages’ of scarce foodstuffs to John’s mother to help relieve the personal food shortages. So we were very much involved in England’s battles and recovery. Mom kept shipping her food luxury packages to John’s mother until 1951, when the rationing had eased and the country was getting back to normal.
I don’t think there are many people in this country today who realize how severe the food shortages and clothing shortages were in your country.
Not long ago I watched a documentary about Queen Elizabeth and her family during and after the war years. If I remember correctly, Elizabeth worked in the motor pool during the war years. The documentary had the Queen driving herself [by herself] around the property at Balmoral a few yearas ago. Her car got the hiccups and temporarily quit on her. She got out, checked the engine, and the sparkplugs, cleaned and gapped them and got the car started again. That’s some kind of woman you’ve got there.
I wish we could teach our politicians not to grab at her, as our President and his wife did. Even I know one does not touch the Queen unless she invites you to.
Marianne
Hi again Marianne, yes indeed, rationing was still in force when I entered this world in the early 50’s. In fact my national insurance number is of the style that carried over from the oldnwartime social security identity numbers.
Yes, Her Maj` is quite a gal. I worked at the Royal Palaces for a while during my policing in London. Spoke to her mother a number of times, as well as the younger members. Met Diana, sat in the car with her once, just the two of us. They are/were humans, some were more different its true, but just humans.
It was great to hear your story.