# The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.



## Andyboy

When I picked up my copy of the Globe And Mail from my porch yesterday I was somewhat irritated at seeing the large colour photo of a man dressed in what appears to be an Australian Flag dress during the Gay Pride Parade spread across the front page. Unfortunately when I turned to page two I was even more disappointed. Halfway down in a small black and white photo was a few of the veterans who were honored at the skydome commemerating the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. Does anyone else see the irony of the honour of the front page spread being given to someone, who without the likes of the veterans relegated to the second page, would not enjoy the freedom to enjoy his "lifestyle"? 

I cancelled my subscription today.


----------



## Gunner

Andyboy, the National Post had a pretty good editorial today on the Korean War.  As well, they have had other articles over the last week including an article by Dr Bercuson.

Unfortunately, Canada does not do alot of remembrance for the Korean War.  I‘d hazard to say most ordinary citizens don‘t even know we took part.

Cheers!

PS Shame on you for having a Globe and Mail subscription in the first place!


----------



## the patriot

Heaven forbid the Gay Pride becomes a national holiday before Remembrance Day.  According to Chretien, it would be to expensive for banks, shopping malls, and IKEA to shut down to honour our war dead for one day.  What a sad testament this is.

-the patriot-


----------



## madorosh

Didn‘t the Legion bring back the Two Minute silence last year for November 11?  I seem to recall a lot of ordinary folk stopping work at 11, even if they didn‘t get the day off.  Perhaps it is up to all of us to make Rememberance Day, at least two minutes of it, a National act of rememberance from a grassroots level, even if the pinheads in Ottawa won‘t.  

Seems to me, the two minutes had a lot of support - judging by the photos in Legion Magazine of transit workers, farmers, assemly line workers etc. stopping work at 11 am.  I hope the Legion makes the two minutes an annual thing.  I‘d like to see the federal government intervene - if they dont‘ have the balls to make everyone stay away from work on the 11th, then the least they can do is make people shut up for two minutes.   I would cut all the phone lines and turn off the cell phones at 11am if it was in my power.


----------



## bossi

Ya know, ya gotta wonder about all this.
On one hand, they're shoving gender equity down everybody's throats (no pun intended ... yuck - that's one image I'd rather not have visualised ... ).
Then, when some troopers exercise their right to dress in drag, the CF Ombudsman gets all bent out of shape ... ?
And, he's all in a huff about "his mandate" ... ?
Well, what about the mandate of a superior officer to defend his troops (who sometimes can't defend themselves very well, especially against smarty-pants and bureaucrats with big brains but little gonads ...)?
Whatever ...
This sounds similar to the tempest in a teapot when they tried to vilify the Navy for their "crossing the Equator" type of rituals - what some would call "time-honoured traditions" ... (but, oh - I forgot - bureaucratic gobble-dy-gook overrides common sense and tradition, doesn't it?)
Personally, I'm not a football fan, so I could care less.
As for dressing in drag?
I nearly "kilt" the last person who called it a skirt.
Some people just don't know how to lighten up, do they?
Oh, gee - maybe it's useful for troops to be able to laugh at themselves once in a while.   And, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world if we bring things out into the open, instead of hiding them ... dare I say ... in the closet?
Heck - I went to the MO this week, and nobody is giving me flak - actually, my buddies are being more supportive than ever.   Maybe bureaucrats like the Ombudsman would benefit from REALLY understanding the psyche of soldiers, instead of forcing political correctness upon a group that has to deal with politically incorrect stuff like "friendly fire", landmine strikes, etc. ...


'Train' a drag
Parade draws ire of army watchdog
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA -- Canada's military watchdog is attacking a senior military officer for dismissing complaints that Winnipeg soldiers who dressed in drag during a parade were mocking mentally ill troops. 

Defence ombudsman Andre Marin told Sun Media he received a flurry of complaints from the Winnipeg barracks about a November drag queen parade called the "French Grey Cup." 

Marin said he dispatched a team of investigators in December to probe the parade that featured floats built by the soldiers to celebrate the end of the battalion's fall sports program. 

Each float had drag queen soldiers as entertainment, including an Arabian-themed float featuring soldiers who recently returned from Afghanistan. 

Several hundred Winnipeg troops were ordered by the battalion commander to attend the parade. 

Marin said investigators are focusing on one float in particular, a black cage adorned with the initials CT and a sign advising that the next stop would be at the north end of the barracks, where mentally ill soldiers received treatment. It's charged that CT stands for Crazy Train and that the drag queen soldiers were poking fun at Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Maj. Malcolm Bruce, deputy Commanding Officer of the Princess Pat's 2nd battalion, told The Winnipeg Sun yesterday that the drag queen show is a 21-year tradition. "It's all done in good fun," Bruce said. "It's unfortunate that, I think, it was taken in the wrong context." 

Marin slammed Bruce for wading into his investigation and fired off a letter to Bruce's boss "to indicate my displeasure at the comments and the fact that they're in violation of the (ombudsman's) mandate." 

Marin said Bruce's comments could jeopardize his investigation. He expects to release a report late next month. 

Marin's investigators were dispatched to Winnipeg at the same time he released his second report on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which found the military stigmatizes soldiers suffering from mental illnesses. 

Marin said that makes the complaints about the Crazy Train float all the more disturbing.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Then, when some troopers exercise their right to dress in drag,


Which right is that?  Can you quote the CFAO for me, I must have missed it.


----------



## Harry

As a former insider of the Bud shop, here are some extracts from the Charter.

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

(a) freedom of conscience and religion; 

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and 

(d) freedom of association.

The angle that is being examined is as follows.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

In the setting of the CF, it is then based upon the extrapolation of rules, regs and orders to ascertain if in fact a Charter violation occurred.

In this specific case, those who felt that the CT and float made ref to pers in or under medical care and assistance.  And further, as this was, to use the military term.  A regimental parade, was it truly a freely attended assembly.

Just some thoughts...  Knee jerk, maybe, does it expose shortcomings in the Bud Shop, yes.  

The tact of Moral suasion in lieu of a real mandate is starting to make him look like a ineffective and purely symbolic individual who is struggling to find a raison dete.

As for dressing in drag, I am sure a case under Sect 2 could be raised.  

Me I will stick defending myself in a kilt.  Hard as heck sometimes to beat those women with impure thoughts off sometimes.  Then sometimes you just have to surrender to the obligatory underwear check.

COMMANDO-OORAH


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

What do you heterosexual men and women think of gays and lesbians joining Canadian Forces?

When accepted should they have same rights as other Canadian Force members(I mean like in getting payed same amount,health benefits etc.)?


----------



## muskrat89

Not to worry, MTF. You‘ll be treated just fine.


----------



## Jarnhamar

LoL.
Dude are you living on an island or something?
"If i ever get my hands cut off will i have to leave the army because i cannot salute correctly?"
I think you should do like someone mentioned and switch over to observe mode. This is a message forum, sure. You have questions, great. A lot of your questions, and i hate to say it, are very stupid and people are going to make fun of you.
Watch some of the other questions people ask and follow suit.


----------



## 762gunner

Too much time on your hands?  Not enough to think about with your own life?  I‘ve been in over 17 years and I couldn‘t give two sh--- whether someone is homosexual or not.  If they do their job, are mature, respect others, etc. no problem.  I know several gay men and women I work with, and I‘ve NEVER seen anyone "ACT" gay.
     I‘ve got better things to think and worry about.  Don‘t you?

     Cheers.    :warstory:


----------



## Thaedes

lol, I can‘t tell if he is naive, or honestly that beligerent.



> When accepted should they have same rights as other Canadian Force members(I mean like in getting payed same amount,health benefits etc.)?


Are you suggesting that because someone has a different sexual preference then what is considered "normal" that consideration into the idea of offering them less rights then anyone else?  What kind of stup*d f*ckin idea is that? 

Because one is a homosexual, does not make them any less a human being then any heterosexual.  Seriously, don‘t post stupid questions.


----------



## D-n-A

lol


I have no problems with homosexuals in the CF, aslong as they do their job well, etc, that applies to everyone, either heterosexual or homosexual



> When accepted should they have same rights as other Canadian Force members(I mean like in getting payed same amount,health benefits etc.)?


why shouldent they have the same rights as everyone else? an why would there pay be different then anyone else‘s?

as for health reasons, are you thinking it should be different because you believe homosexuals are more prone to get HIV/AIDs, it‘s not just something gay people can pick up, heterosexuals can get it just as easily


----------



## combat_medic

> When accepted should they have same rights as other Canadian Force members(I mean like in getting payed same amount,health benefits etc.)?


No, we all think they should be let in, and then treated like crap, not paid, be entitled to no benefits, and be used as slaves in our evil plans to take over the world! <-insert sarcasm here

OK kid, you REALLY REALLY NEED to stop posting stupid, ignorant tripe like that. I personally think you‘re from another planet, because you don‘t seem to understand this tiny concept called basic human rights.

So, either you‘re INCREDIBLY naive and ignorant, or this is all some sick flame kindle joke. In either case, I would recommend you shup up right quick before you shove both feet further into your mouth.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by muskrat89:
> [qb] Not to worry, MTF. You‘ll be treated just fine. [/qb]


I‘m not worried I am 100% heterosexual.I just wanted your guys opinion.I am not giving mine because if I do it won‘t be nice and there will be too many pissed off people if I do.I know when not to say something.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] LoL.
> Dude are you living on an island or something?
> "If i ever get my hands cut off will i have to leave the army because i cannot salute correctly?"
> I think you should do like someone mentioned and switch over to observe mode. This is a message forum, sure. You have questions, great. A lot of your questions, and i hate to say it, are very stupid and people are going to make fun of you.
> Watch some of the other questions people ask and follow suit. [/qb]


No you wouldn‘t have to leave for not being able to salute properly,because of a cut off arm,but you‘d probably have to leave since you wouldn‘t be able to hold the weapons used properly.Besides if you lost an arm I‘m sure CF would consider you disabled and would no longer want you,am I correct?


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Thaedes:
> [qb] lol, I can‘t tell if he is naive, or honestly that beligerent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When accepted should they have same rights as other Canadian Force members(I mean like in getting payed same amount,health benefits etc.)?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that because someone has a different sexual preference then what is considered "normal" that consideration into the idea of offering them less rights then anyone else?  What kind of stup*d f*ckin idea is that?
> 
> Because one is a homosexual, does not make them any less a human being then any heterosexual.  Seriously, don‘t post stupid questions. [/qb]
Click to expand...

If the question is so stupid,what does that make you for answering?


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by MuayThaiFighter:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know when not to say something. [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you don‘t. Now take a break with the questions and use the search engine, you‘ll find answers to most questions you have, as some have been discussed at length here. And slow down on the arrogance.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarnhamar

It makes him very patient. He‘s trying to help someone from looking stupid but he‘s not getting much help from you, MTF.

I‘ve a pretty good feeling your anti homosexual from the comment you made about keeping your opinions to yourself. Thats great.
When i was a kid i thought the same way.

Should homosexuals be allowed in the military? Why not. They are burried on the beaches of normandy after all.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

D@mn it, this thread should end now. Asking how homosexuals get treated doesn‘t have to do with the military whatsoever. It is the society and the mindset the people have.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Travis:
> [qb] I dun think so,  then some lonley gay on tha battlefield would see some soldier n rape em! :S [/qb]


Don‘t you think that is a bit of an exaggeration since it doesn‘t necessarily take a gay person to do that.

Besides it doesn‘t make sense because you are assuming all soldiers are men,and they will always be the ones helping you out on the battle fields and this just isn‘t the case.

If you‘re going to have a debate with others in here at least make sense bud.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

A persons sexual preferance wouldn‘t (or shouldn‘t) affect the way they soldier. So why shouldn‘t they be entitled to the same pay or health benefits as other people due too their sexual preferance, they probably soldier aswell or better than many straight individuals in the forces. They are humans and they do have rights. I don‘t know where you come from but this is Canada we legalized homosexual marriages so if homosexuals can marry the people they love like heterosexual people why can‘t they be allowed to work in the forces like heterosexual people.


----------



## holywars33

What the ****  is with all the homophobes?  I personally don‘t care if a homosexual or lesbian is in a foxhole next to me.  Everyone is entitled to thier opinion and have thier own preferences, just as long as they don‘t press them on me or others.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Martin de Souza:
> [qb] A persons sexual preferance wouldn‘t (or shouldn‘t) affect the way they soldier. So why shouldn‘t they be entitled to the same pay or health benefits as other people due too their sexual preferance, they probably soldier aswell or better than many straight individuals in the forces. They are humans and they do have rights. I don‘t know where you come from but this is Canada we legalized homosexual marriages so if homosexuals can marry the people they love like heterosexual people why can‘t they be allowed to work in the forces like heterosexual people. [/qb]


Just to add two comments to this,just because Canada recently allowed gay marriages does it make it right?And what does gays getting married have to do with them serving in Canadian Forces? I can‘t see any connection here.

Explain this to me.


----------



## Thaedes

> If the question is so stupid,what does that make you for answering?


Foolish for wasting my time, heh, but I don‘t mind.  A spare minute everyday here or there spent trying to ridicule other foolishness is time well wasted in my opinion.



> Just to add two comments to this,just because Canada recently allowed gay marriages does it make it right?And what does gays getting married have to do with them serving in Canadian Forces? I can‘t see any connection here.
> 
> Explain this to me.


Yes, it does make it right.  Since sexual orientation is a superficial classification of individuals.  Since other individuals marry and have children, it stands to reason that homosexual individuals can do this as well (adopt children since they obviously cannot procreate as heterosexual couples do).

What do homosexuals being allowed to get married have to do with the Canadian Forces?  Well that is a good question, but one that has a pretty good answer as well.  All freedoms and rights within Canada are upheld in the Military.  A new freedom being granted (long overdue) to individuals in the civillian world must be granted to those in the Military world (at least here in Canada).  This will increase the over all amount of marriages in the Canadian forces (likely not by much, but then we don‘t have the #‘s or statistics to even get a ball park figure).  Not to mention, since the combat arms are almost entirely composed of male individuals, this is most likely to be the place to see the largest number of increased marriages.  I‘m sure you can see the problem here, (though it may not be obvious).  Spouses working together, especially in the field and in the same regiment could have many potential problems.  As such, there would have to be regulations of some sort monitoring this like at many other places of work (not just homosexual, but heterosexual as well).

Now, correct me if I‘m wrong but I‘m fairly certain there are already some guidelines for the heterosexual marriages in the forces I‘d imagine - it‘d simply be a matter of adapting it to fit homosexual marriages as well.

MTF, since you‘re already in the position of devil‘s advocate right now, why don‘t you provide us with some well thought out answers as to why individuals of homosexual preference should be paid less, or treated with less dignity?  or any of the other ridiculous questions you originally asked?

To me, to ridicule people for their sexual preference is as silly as ridiculing them for their favorite colour.  Would you honestly believe that someone deserved less money because they liked blue instead of yellow?


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

What I mean‘t by that statement was that since we allow them to be married should we not allow them into the forces (if they are not already allowed). As OUGrizz siad: I personally don‘t care if a homosexual or lesbian is in a foxhole next to me. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion and have thier own preferences, just as long as they don‘t press them on me or others.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by Thaedes:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the question is so stupid,what does that make you for answering?
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish for wasting my time, heh, but I don‘t mind.  A spare minute everyday here or there spent trying to ridicule other foolishness is time well wasted in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add two comments to this,just because Canada recently allowed gay marriages does it make it right?And what does gays getting married have to do with them serving in Canadian Forces? I can‘t see any connection here.
> 
> Explain this to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does make it right.  Since sexual orientation is a superficial classification of individuals.  Since other individuals marry and have children, it stands to reason that homosexual individuals can do this as well (adopt children since they obviously cannot procreate as heterosexual couples do).
> 
> What do homosexuals being allowed to get married have to do with the Canadian Forces?  Well that is a good question, but one that has a pretty good answer as well.  All freedoms and rights within Canada are upheld in the Military.  A new freedom being granted (long overdue) to individuals in the civillian world must be granted to those in the Military world (at least here in Canada).  This will increase the over all amount of marriages in the Canadian forces (likely not by much, but then we don‘t have the #‘s or statistics to even get a ball park figure).  Not to mention, since the combat arms are almost entirely composed of male individuals, this is most likely to be the place to see the largest number of increased marriages.  I‘m sure you can see the problem here, (though it may not be obvious).  Spouses working together, especially in the field and in the same regiment could have many potential problems.  As such, there would have to be regulations of some sort monitoring this like at many other places of work (not just homosexual, but heterosexual as well).
> 
> Now, correct me if I‘m wrong but I‘m fairly certain there are already some guidelines for the heterosexual marriages in the forces I‘d imagine - it‘d simply be a matter of adapting it to fit homosexual marriages as well.
> 
> MTF, since you‘re already in the position of devil‘s advocate right now, why don‘t you provide us with some well thought out answers as to why individuals of homosexual preference should be paid less, or treated with less dignity?  or any of the other ridiculous questions you originally asked?
> 
> To me, to ridicule people for their sexual preference is as silly as ridiculing them for their favorite colour.  Would you honestly believe that someone deserved less money because they liked blue instead of yellow? [/qb]
Click to expand...

I know where you are coming from,but I disagree 100%,but that is my right as an individual to feel that way,about allowing gays to adopt children,but that‘s besides the point and this thread is about Canadian Forces.

I never said they should be paid less and have different benefits I am just asking what you guys think?

If you really want my opinion,then I‘d have to say I don‘t think they should be allowed in Canadian Forces period,if U.S can avoid that from happening why can‘t Canada?There are religious people in army correct?Well homosexuality is against all religions so to make someone who is religious to have to be around that all the time when training is simply wrong.

That would be like me making you eat something you don‘t like and allergic to.

Obviously you can‘t get rid of religious people in army because that would mean getting rid of more then half the people in army and we would end up with even a smaller army which Canada can‘t afford to have happen.So you might as well get rid of homosexuality in army,which is immoral anyways.Canadian Forces if I am correct is supposed enforce morals to some extent,so does it make sense to have gays and lesbians join?NO.

Like I said that‘s just my opinion with my rights to believe in,since you want to talk about freedom and rights.

As far as you talking about colours,it is pointless because if you‘re trying to say I sound racist,I am not racist,although some of you may think I am just for my opinions against gays.

To me that‘s not racism it is called common sense.

Anyways I have answered your question and given my opinion,but you can disagree all you want,it‘s not going to change my opinion.

Your point of view is your right just as my opinion is my right,like you said Canada is about freedom and rights.


----------



## nULL

Actually, the only people who SHOULDN‘T be allowed in the military are people who use religon to justify their being bigots; You people sicken me.


----------



## Etown

> Well homosexuality is against all religions so to make someone who is religious to have to be around that all the time when training is simply wrong.


That is quite an ignorant statement. There is no rule, guideline or even remote suggestion in my religion that states that homosexuality is immoral. It does however have rules about treating people badly, so by your logic I shouldn‘t be subjected to your immoral presence. Oh, and I shouldn‘t have to put up with all you evil meat eaters either.(no pun intended)

So please stop projecting your backward outdated views onto the rest of us with faith.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter

> Originally posted by E-Town:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well homosexuality is against all religions so to make someone who is religious to have to be around that all the time when training is simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite an ignorant statement. There is no rule, guideline or even remote suggestion in my religion that states that homosexuality is immoral. It does however have rules about treating people badly, so by your logic I shouldn‘t be subjected to your immoral presence. Oh, and I shouldn‘t have to put up with all you evil meat eaters either.(no pun intended)
> 
> So please stop projecting your backward outdated views onto the rest of us with faith. [/qb]
Click to expand...

What exactly is your religion? 

I‘m Catholic and in my bible it says homosexuality is a sin.My view has nothing to do with being backward,it all has to do with my religion.

"I shouldn‘t have to put up with all you evil meat eaters either.(no pun intended)."

How the ****  did that come up?

Are you saying anyone that eats meat is evil? Don‘t tell me you are one of those typical vegetarians and animal activists who think it is so wrong to kill animals to eat.


----------



## Gunnar

Thaedes, you‘re clearly misinformed.  Blue is a far superior colour to red.  I am surprised you would even defend such an untenable position.

Thanks God we‘re getting into discussions that matter!

Hey MuyThai...what do you think about dogs in the military?  What if they get all worked up because the local chihuahua is in heat?  OMG, how will we handle it when dog-soldiers go nuts!

This whole thread is so far from a rational discussion that it deserves my commentary.  ;-)


----------



## combat_medic

MuayThaiFighter: Since you are ignorant and a bigot and obviously closed-minded and prejudiced, you will not be allowed to join. If you lie on your interview and make it in anyway, it had better not be in my regiment. I will ensure that the recruiters know about this if you do join, as these kind of bigoted attitutes are NOT tolerated in the CF.


----------



## Pte Lickers

Yes homosexuals should be allowed in the Canadian Forces, Since as human beings and citizens they have the right of any other person. The only thing that should block them are the things that block eerybody (criminal record, citizenship medical ailments etc) Sexual preference is not and should not be guidelines for any sort of application to any job.
As for marriage, why not??? a stable loving and sexual relationship can exist between two people of the same or opposite sex so shinanagins on anything else.  BOO HOO its against god, well to bad yours isnt the only god or belief in this country.  
As for adopting children why not? If a stable supportive atmosphere can exist and be offered to a child in need then go ahead.

As for making the poor religious person uncomfortable in the next foxhole, he or she can go flock themself.  Your religious ideals are respected but dont except every commandement to be followed by every person in the army just cuz your there. 

And as for the innapropriate and juvenile comment about sexual assault:  It was not uncommon in war for hetrosexual men to preform homosexual acts on each other to releive sexual tension particularly near thr front lines of WW1 and 2.  What im saying is homosexuals are just as capable of controlling urges the same as every other person on this earth.  I think every person who disagrees about race or sexual oreintation should wake up open their eyes and climb out of their petty small mind.


----------



## Pte Lickers

Oh yeah MuayTye,  your right  you have every right to hold your opinion.  Every man women or child should be able to hold one.

Your opinion isnt wrong or evil.  Its just backward outdated and very very sad.  I actually sincerly feel sorry for you that you cannot see out of your little box.  Perhaps as time progresses and you begin to mature you will be able to make that big step and think for yourself.


----------



## onecat

I‘m Catholic and in my bible it says homosexuality is a sin.My view has nothing to do with being backward,it all has to do with my religion

So what part of this catholic bible says homosexualoty is a sin?  People aways point to it as a sin, but never back it up with a passage.  The bibles says a lot of things, like you can keep slaves, stome your wife.... so what makes one part more important that others.  I have feeling you break the bible rules all the time, with you quest for hot women... and sex.  After all doesn‘t the bible say that‘s wrong.  I‘m sure the person next to you in that foxhole who is religious would be uncomfortable with you, knowing you seek out pre-marriage sex.  From my understanding of the Christian religion, sin is sin..it doesn‘t matter what the sin was.... it‘s all wrong in the eyes of GoD.  And if your catholic, I sure who you do use birth control... its a sin too if youy believe in the Pope.


----------



## nbk

I have stayed out of this discussion because I refuse to believe MTF is being honest. I think he is just acting this way to cause trouble, as no one in this day and age, except for religous zealots could be this ignorant.

All I have to say is the following two things for people who use religion to justify disliking homosexuals:

1) Canada is a SECULAR country. This is why we don‘t learn from any religious documents in school (thank god), and we are not forced by law to attend temple services (thank allah). Furthermore our laws are not based of religous texts or edicts (eg. stoning a woman for comitting adultery, thank buddha).

2) Homosexuals don‘t choose to be homosexuals, they are born that way. They cannot turn ungay no matter how hard they try, it is rooted in their psyche, and possibly even their genetics. Religious people CHOOSE to participate in their religion. If you consider homosexuality a problem, and are intelligent enough to see that religion is a problem, then who has the problem that can be fixed?


----------



## Fusaki

I honestly don‘t see the relevence of this conversation. It doesn‘t really matter what anyone thinks of homosexuals because the CF has a policy of non descrimination. If I wanted to work at McDonalds, does my opinion on the Bacon Double Cheeseburger matter? Of course not. If I didn‘t like it I wouldn‘t apply for the job. Its like complaining about the weather. You can cry all you want but it won‘t change anything. Just go with the flow or look for another line of work.


----------



## Gunner

Military cadet makes history with wedding 

Is this really news?   More to the point, does anyone really care anymore?   When I read this article I was shaking my head about a 19 year old getting married to someone he met only four months ago.    


Military cadet makes history with wedding; 19-year-old first armed forces gay to take a husband Couple celebrates with front-row concert tickets
As far as his fiance was concerned, Officer Cadet Jason Stewart was planning a simple weekend getaway to Toronto. 

But when a white stretch limo rolled up outside Joey Schwehr's Kingston, Ont., home Friday afternoon, he realized it was much more than that. It became the much-anticipated weekend they would say their vows, making Stewart, who attends Kingston's Royal Military College, the first man in the military to marry another man. 

"The first time we went on a date, (Joey) said he wanted to be picked up in a white stretch limo with white roses in the back and be surprised," said Stewart, 19, from the Fairmont Royal York hotel yesterday afternoon, just hours after they were wed. 


Accompanied by a few close friends, the two were married at city hall. Last night, they celebrated at the Britney Spears concert after finding front-row tickets for $150 apiece. 

While neither of their families attended the wedding, Stewart said both groups are happy for them. "They knew we were engaged and going to get married. (Joey's) father took it well. I think his mother was a little upset that she wasn't going to be there for it," Stewart said. 


But both of their parents, as well as about 300 friends and family, will be present when the two reaffirm their vows at the military college in October. 

"Everyone's always been really supportive," said Stewart of his peers and teachers at the college. "I've never gotten any flack about it. Everybody's just gung-ho and most of my superiors are more worried about me getting married at a young age than who I'm getting married to." 



Stewart and Schwehr, 20, dated for a little over four months after being set up on a blind date. They said their connection was instant. "It was so special. I just knew ... it's hard to explain, but I just knew. Every moment right from there, it was great," said Schwehr, who works at a clothing store in Kingston. 


Since they met, Stewart said the two have spent every day together. He proposed to Schwehr at work about a month ago. 

"Since I started dating when I was about 16, I probably hadn't really been in love before until I met Joey," Stewart said. "We definitely wouldn't have gotten married if we didn't think we were perfect for each other." 


When he told his mother last month that he was gay and he was getting married, she wasn't surprised. Unsure of how his father, a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia, would react, she offered to tell him when he got home from work. A few hours later, Stewart got a phone call. 


"My dad called me up and the only thing he said was, 'Just tell Joey he's gotta look after us when we get older,'" said Stewart. "So they took it very well."


----------



## willy

I certainly don‘t care.  Let him do what he wants, it doesn‘t affect me any.  I just hope the poor guy doesn‘t get harassed too badly over it.  I wonder if he‘s thought the thing through fully: not only is he marrying someone he met four months ago, but by being the first such case in the military he‘s really opening himself up to a lot of flak.  Either he‘s really brave, or really stupid.


----------



## Gunner

Being a young guy, I would have to vote for the stupid part.


----------



## willy

Yeah, probably.  Oh well, live and learn.


----------



## winchable

Could you imagine, marrying every person you still thought you loved after 4 months when you were 18 or 19??

Ohh man...

Gay marriage issue aside, guys not even through university yet, still a teenager. Well good luck to him in any case becaue that‘s going to cause an odd backlash back at the college.

I can just picture old dad the bluenosed lobster fisherman‘s reaction to that too.
"lord tunnerin.."


----------



## Jason Bourne

"lord tunnerin.." lol east coasters.

yeah...thats gonna cause somewhat of a backlash down the road being in the military and all...I‘m not a bigot by any means but this military is built on Christian values (sort of). I personally don‘t care and I wish the guy the best of luck.


----------



## Infanteer

I‘m not even going to say anything....


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] I‘m not even going to say anything.... [/qb]


I‘m getting to the point where I hate agreeing with every **** thing you post infanteer, but there it is!!     

I may have to go reread Heinlein to see what he would have said about this.   :crybaby:


----------



## Infanteer

Since you disabled your PM, I‘ll post my response here.



> I‘m getting to the point where I hate agreeing with every **** thing you post infanteer, but there it is!!
> 
> I may have to go reread Heinlein to see what he would have said about this.


I don‘t get it.

Not a challenge or anything.  But I honestly don‘t understand your response.  Please PM me.


----------



## nbk

This isnt really news. Why would anyone care? Gay marriage is no longer an issue. After only 4 months he gets married? I think this guy just wants attention, and is trying to stir the pot...


----------



## chrisf

> Originally posted by Jason Bourne:
> [qb] "lord tunnerin.." lol east coasters.
> 
> yeah...thats gonna cause somewhat of a backlash down the road being in the military and all...I‘m not a bigot by any means but this military is built on Christian values (sort of). I personally don‘t care and I wish the guy the best of luck. [/qb]


I note you say soon to be a sig op, meaning you‘re not in yet...

Somthing you‘ll find pretty quickly about the CF is that discrimination is pretty gravely frowned on...


----------



## Garry

The Military, being a Federal organisation, lives by the Federal Government rules.

These kids were married in a Province, (by the Province), that recognises gay marriage.

As of right now, the Federal Government does not recognise gay marriage.

It‘ll be very interesting to see if they are in fact allowed to "re-solemnise" their vows at the Military University‘s chapel: it would setting a precedent.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] Since you disabled your PM, I‘ll post my response here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I‘m getting to the point where I hate agreeing with every **** thing you post infanteer, but there it is!!
> 
> I may have to go reread Heinlein to see what he would have said about this.
> 
> 
> 
> I don‘t get it.
> 
> Not a challenge or anything.  But I honestly don‘t understand your response.  Please PM me. [/qb]
Click to expand...

I don‘t PM.  Just saying that I keep agreeing with everything you‘ve been posting lately....

You also kidded me about coming around to Heinlein...I was kidding back...


----------



## chrisf

A wonderful moment to note, the only two who‘ve said anything negative about this are a civillian and a cadet...

Part of being in the army means leaving your personal life at home. Gay, straight, man, woman, doesn‘t matter. You‘re a soldier at work, that‘s it.


----------



## bossi

1.  Getting married at the age of 19 after only going together for only four months?  Good luck.

2.  Rumour from Kingston is that this is merely a publicity stunt, and what‘s really going on is somebody is going to try and duck out of his compulsory service to the CF after graduation (i.e. claiming discrimination).  It‘s not the first time an RMC student nearing graduation has "suddenly" revealed why they can‘t serve ...

Stay tuned, as the stomach turns ...

P.S. (reminds me of the story in Toronto of the teen who wanted to take his gay date to the prom -some cradle-robber in his 20‘s - after all the ruckus died down ... they split up - I don‘t think they even stayed together long enough for the prom)


----------



## Jason Bourne

> I note you say soon to be a sig op, meaning you‘re not in yet...
> 
> Somthing you‘ll find pretty quickly about the CF is that discrimination is pretty gravely frowned on...


ahh lol well I do know something about discrimination, being black helps out in that case. I wasn‘t discriminating and I stated I had nothing against the guy, just stating a view some people might hold against him..


----------



## combat_medic

I had a couple friends who were 18-19 in university and ran off to be married after only dating for a few months. Despite their claimed desire to finish school, she got pregnant and had to leave school, and he had to leave to support her. They were both poor, miserable, and ended up divorcing after only a year or two.

At least we won‘t be worried about an "oops" like that with these kids. If it is a publicity stunt, or an attempt to get out of service, then shame on them. If they just want to run off and get married young like all the other couples their age doing the same, then they can learn the hard knocks along with the rest of them.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Just A Sig OP,

I have plenty that I would love to say about this event but I‘d get banned toote suite from this forum and enjoy my priviledges here too much. I‘ll just gripe over it at the pub tonight.

BTW,

Soldiering is a lifestyle. It‘s not what you do it‘s what you are. Maybe working at WalMart could be seen as only 0900-1700 but not soldiering. As for this event I hope that something like the re-solemnising isn‘t allowed to happen on Federal property.VVV

Slainte,


----------



## Infanteer

Ohh, don‘t get your hopes up, SigOp.

I think the story is ridiculous and am totally opposed to gay marriages, and I can guarantee you most soldiers would agree with me.  Just because I am a soldier doesn‘t mean I have to subscribe to the morally nuetered outlook of the federal bureaucracy (although I do abide by it).

I posted my mum response because I have more to worry about than getting worked up over two fruits who want to say they are a family and enjoy some tax breaks (and publicity).


----------



## Jarnhamar

This is so great. Maybe they should make a reality TV show about it. It‘s probably the only thing left they haven‘t done.

Like really, how sacred is marrage anymore? How is this breaking news? You got strangers getting married on TV and pop stars getting married for a joke.  If they are doing it for a gag or to get out of service let them enjoy their honeymoon in jail.
I think the whole "wow oh my god someone is gay and their not hiding it!" thing went out a few years ago.


----------



## dwild40

Good luck to them. End of comment.


----------



## jasonin20020

all the power to them


----------



## alan_li_13

Being Catholic, i don‘t support gay marriage. And I sure as heck won‘t support them if they plan on renewing their vows in a military Christian chapel. 

A military chapel is there for the soldiers of what ever faith the chapel is. If the two men want to renew their vows there, it would be against the religious morals of the other soldiers who worship at that chapel. 

I seriously doubt that the Chaplain would conduct such a service for these two men.


----------



## SFontaine

You never know in this Army.


----------



## Spr.Earl

I just thank my God that I grew up when Men were Men and Women were Women and sheep were nervous!


----------



## 1feral1

Time to buy some soap on a rope! 

Sod being politically correct, I find the article disgusting!

*shakes head*

Cheers,

Wes

[moderator note:  removed phonetic spelling of a word one shouldn‘t say in front of small children]


----------



## kaspacanada

This isn‘t history.  I don‘t like it, but here‘s my piece.

Every other member that attends RMC has the right to be ‘married‘ there.  I agree that it goes against many of the religious values of other members and don‘t think that it should be done at the Chapel out of respect for their beleifs and the traditions of the respective churches as institutions.  But I do think that, provided they are not doing this to find a way to release after graduation, they do have the right to be ‘married‘ at RMC.  I think for the PR aspect, the CF will go with it as it shows the ‘new army‘.  Well, if that‘s what Canadians want, the CF is not in the business of enforcing it‘s views, it‘s in the business of enforcing and respecting overall Canadian views, including the respect of individual and minority rights provided they don‘t collide with operational and physical security.

Personally I think they should leave it at home, but that said, shouldn‘t straight members leave it at home then too?  If that‘s the case, they might as well get rid of the right to get married at RMC altogether.

Edit by me: Ya Wes, I think the article is too ‘flamboyant‘ (to choose a fruity word).  I didn‘t want to know the personal details of their lives as I feel somewhat confused and repulsed by it.  But whatever, I gave up trying to understand why and how could it be that way when my cousin turned out to be gay.


----------



## ggranatstein

> yeah...thats gonna cause somewhat of a backlash down the road being in the military and all...I‘m not a bigot by any means but this military is built on Christian values (sort of).


Oh oh.... I‘m not a Christian... Does that mean I don‘t belong in the military? Too bad. All that training for nothing!

Do you really care what your troops do at home? When we go to work, we‘re all dressed in green. Black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Gay - it DOES NOT matter. If you get the job done well, you‘re OK in my books. 

And Christian values? Last time I checked, Christian values represented tolerance, acceptance, and love - regardless of sexual preference.

The only thing upsetting about that article was that they celebrated their vows at a Britney Spears concert... Now that turns my stomach!


----------



## nbk

> Originally posted by rifle_team_captain_13:
> [qb]A military chapel is there for the soldiers of what ever faith the chapel is. If the two men want to renew their vows there, it would be against the religious morals of the other soldiers who worship at that chapel. [/qb]


"Religious morals" isn‘t that an oxymoron?

People choose to participate in a religion. 

People do not choose to be gay. 

Therefore the one that has choice is the one who must bend in order to accomodate the one who does not have a choice.

Its like if you were to be shot at. Are you (the one with the choice) going to move out of the way of the bullet, or will you expect the bullet (which cannot choose to move) to accomodate you, and move out of your way?

I stand by the statement that these guys are just trying to stir up a ruckus and trying to get attention so they can scream "discrimination!" as soon as the cook gives them 2 scoops of mashed potatoes instead of 3. Its not a big deal and we should not give them the attention that they seek. They should be concentrating on their duties.

But I must say that the disgusting, bigoted replies that some of the members make on this board, reflect quite poorly on the CF in general.

We do not live in the Holy Roman Empire. This is not the 12th century. Have we not evolved a little bit in the last thousand years? In my experiences members of the Canadian Forces have been intelligent and honorable men and women. 

If you allow heterosexual marriages in the Military chapels, then there *is no excuse* not to allow homosexual marriages in the same chapels. No excuse what so ever. Besides of course blatant unfounded bigotry. Or they are attempting to cover up their own latent homosexuality, and believe if gay marriages are allowed in a military chapel, then that will turn them 100% homosexual and this will somehow be a negative thing. If the religious beliefs do not accept the sexuality of some people, then the government should should be boycotting these bigoted religions until they do get with the times.  

It is no different then if you were to request seperate chapels for African Americans or Asian Americans or what have you. People of different races do not choose to be the race that they are, so condemning or judging them for being that way makes no sense at all, and is entierly pointless. The church has had to bend before, allowing people of different races to get married to eachother and soforth. Everything that exists must evolve and change in order to survive, sicne times do change. The king james version of the bible was not the first incarnation of the book to be dreamed up. 

You are in Canada, alright? If you wish to fight for ancient, embarassing, outdated, unjust and oppressive religious views, I believe the Taliban is still looking for new recruits. 

Yes, don‘t forget our brothers and sisters are fighting and dying to bring civil liberties to a country which had come to embrace these exact same outdated appalling religious beliefs that you are condoning. 

Your religious beliefs are your own. This means they have no relevance when dealing with how others should act, when they are not harming anyone. So long as they do not affect anyone else negatively, then beleieve whatever the **** you want.

I hope the mods don‘t get too sensitive and lock this thread, because people should be registering their opinions.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

nbk, I want to marry my dog.  There is no reason - no reason whatsoever - the military shouldn‘t allow me to do so, and provide full spousal benefits.  And I think you are are closed minded and insensitive if you disagree.  

What about a dude who wishes to marry his sister, or a 12 year old girl?

Seems to me there ARE reasons not to allow these things, they are called traditions and values, and they were what the nation was built on.  I don‘t find these values "embarrassing", but they certainly are ancient.  Another word for ancient is "time honoured".

Frankly, we shouldn‘t be concerned how people express themselves in their own bedrooms, it is when they demand public attention for its own sake that we need to be more decisive.  Sometimes, we do have to say "no" in this country, and don‘t do it often enough.  Too many parolees out there still raping and murdering, too many special interest groups demanding "equality" instead of earning it.

Civil Liberties are one thing; throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite another.


----------



## muskrat89

Very well said, Michael


----------



## ggranatstein

Mr. Dorosh,

I expect better from you.

I can only assume that you are not comparing gay marriage to marrying a dog.... Throwing "the baby out with the bath water" seems a little harsh. 

 Your analogy is faulty to the core. A dog does not have the sense or abilty to enter into a marriage aware of the reprecussions. Nor does a 12 year-old child. 

Two grown, fully competent people, entering into a marriage is something entirely different.

Yes, I agree with you, this country was founded on a certain value set. Some of those values were decent - some were not.

When this country was founded, women did not have the right to vote and jews and muslims were not permitted to hold office. Black people were considered sub-human. Racism and prejudice were some of the ‘values‘ this country was founded on. I hope that we can all agree that those ‘old values‘ aren‘t valid anymore.

We have come along way. Our value set has evolved. 50 years from now we might look back on some of the things said in this forum and be morally repulsed at our ‘backwards behaviour.‘

Marriage IS a time-honoured tradition. It is a tradition that initially required dowries and not the consent of the woman. It is a tradition, like all good traditions, that is evolving with the times. 

You may not like it, but one of the time-honoured traditions in Canada is allowing people to make reasonable choices for themselves without the fear of persecution.


----------



## nbk

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb] nbk, I want to marry my dog.  There is no reason - no reason whatsoever - the military shouldn‘t allow me to do so, and provide full spousal benefits.  And I think you are are closed minded and insensitive if you disagree.
> 
> What about a dude who wishes to marry his sister, or a 12 year old girl?
> 
> Seems to me there ARE reasons not to allow these things, they are called traditions and values, and they were what the nation was built on.  I don‘t find these values "embarrassing", but they certainly are ancient.  Another word for ancient is "time honoured".
> 
> Frankly, we shouldn‘t be concerned how people express themselves in their own bedrooms, it is when they demand public attention for its own sake that we need to be more decisive.  Sometimes, we do have to say "no" in this country, and don‘t do it often enough.  Too many parolees out there still raping and murdering, too many special interest groups demanding "equality" instead of earning it.
> 
> Civil Liberties are one thing; throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite another. [/qb]


Mr. Dorosh: I do not know weather marrying an animal is against the law in this country, but if it is indeed not, then more power to you (or whoever would do that). As long as the relationship is not hurting anyone else (eg. the dog is not biting people) then why is it any of my business what you want to do with your personal life? As long as it does not affect your performance or anything I rely on you for, it is none of my concern.

With a 12 year old girl, I believe that is against the law in Canada (14 I believe is the age?). So I would understand the military chapel being opposed to that, as if they were to marry a 12 year old they would be breaking the law.

If one wants to marry a 14 year old girl (or whatever the legal age is) and the 14 year old wants to marry them, then best wishes you guys. Its not my forte, but this would not make me want to deny it to someone else who may truly be in love.

For example I cannot stand the taste of coffee. Does this mean I should try to get it banned? The profits from the buying of the premium Columbian ground funds terrorist revolutionaries in South America after all...hey I even have an unresearched and shoddy case to back my argument up with.

OR I could just not drink coffee, and not care if other people do, cause what they do does not affect me.

As a heterosexual person, one does not have any right to condemn homosexuals or prevent them from getting married and doing what they want. What they do will not effect you at all. Some gay guys decide to get married on the other side of the country...how will this harm you at all? Fact is it wont. People just like hating, especially when in a group where the ycan feed off eachother. So that is why the targets of hatred are always a different group of people then the ones doing the hating.

How many gays do not want gay marriage? Their opinion counts on this subject, as they are the only ones to be effected by the outcome. 

If a law is never going to effect me, then why deny it to people it would effect, and would prosper from it? This is the simple thing that my mind cannot get over.

Its like banning the use of your left hand in schools. As a right handed person why do I care if people use their left hands or not? Its not going to effect me. So I could really care less. Its like picking on a group of people for a completely arbitrary trait they have and cannot do anything about. Its stupid, pointless and is a waste of everyones time.


----------



## Redeye

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb] nbk, I want to marry my dog.  There is no reason - no reason whatsoever - the military shouldn‘t allow me to do so, and provide full spousal benefits.  And I think you are are closed minded and insensitive if you disagree.
> 
> What about a dude who wishes to marry his sister, or a 12 year old girl?
> 
> Seems to me there ARE reasons not to allow these things, they are called traditions and values, and they were what the nation was built on.  I don‘t find these values "embarrassing", but they certainly are ancient.  Another word for ancient is "time honoured".
> 
> Frankly, we shouldn‘t be concerned how people express themselves in their own bedrooms, it is when they demand public attention for its own sake that we need to be more decisive.  Sometimes, we do have to say "no" in this country, and don‘t do it often enough.  Too many parolees out there still raping and murdering, too many special interest groups demanding "equality" instead of earning it.
> 
> Civil Liberties are one thing; throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite another. [/qb]


Mr. Dorosh, I‘m going to have to step forward and join the ranks of people who think this is the most unabashedly ignorant thing I‘ve seen on this board to date.

It‘s common to see those on the hard right make the argument that you have, but it‘s the most foolish argument in the world.

Marriage is in a sense a contract, one which can be entered into only by those with a capacity to contract and only under similar terms to any other contract.  That is to say, the only people who can enter to marriage are consenting adults making a free choice to do so.  A dog does not qualify, neither does a twelve year old girl (except in Quebec if she has reached puberty and has her parents‘ consent - though they may have changed that).  That doesn‘t necessarily exclude an incestuous relationship, but clearly that is something that there is a legitimate reason to exclude, you‘d be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with it.

I‘m extremely anti-marriage of any sort, by virtue primarily of watching my idiotic friends get married and divorced rapidly.  I do think this particular cadet might be out for attention, publicity, or whatever, but on the broader scale, who the **** cares who can and can‘t get married, so long as they are consenting adults.  Traditions, "time honoured" or otherwise, change.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am coming up on my 12th anniversary with my wife and having two men or two women marry each other has no affect in the slightest on our vows, our commitment or our love for one another. Why should it matter to the rest of us if gay and lesbians want to be treated the same as the rest of us. I don‘t agree with their lifestyle choice but it is their lifestyle choice to make. Same as if someone wants to go to school, join the military or sit on Spring Garden road begging for spare change. I don‘t think we have the right to judge people that much and when we do then the flames of hate begin to burn ever more brighter. Interracial marriages at one time were frowned upon and in some circles are stil greeted with hate and disgust. I feel that the reaction that gays and lesbians get these days is a new form of racism. You might not think so but if you think long and hard and compare it to what African Canadians (and now Arab Canadians) have experienced and still experience amounts to the same.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Redeye:
> [qb]I‘m extremely anti-marriage of any sort, by virtue primarily of watching my idiotic friends get married and divorced rapidly. [/qb]


So allowing more people to get married is your solution?  I would have expected the opposite, if your argument is to have any kind of inherent logic whatsoever.


----------



## Redeye

It‘s not a solution - if more people want, of their own free will, to engage in such endeavours, why stop them, if they are freely consenting adults?  What bearing does it have on your life?  None.  What bearing does it have on mine?  None.  My point is merely that my opposition to marriage of any sort doesn‘t (and shouldn‘t) decide the course of anyone else‘s life.


----------



## bossi

Hmmm ... I thought "in-breeding" was the reason marrying a sibling was frowned upon ...


----------



## alan_li_13

Wow, i can not believe you said that: 


> If you wish to fight for ancient, embarassing, outdated, unjust and oppressive religious views, I believe the Taliban is still looking for new recruits.


But that‘s alright, i‘ll turn the other cheek. 

I don‘t oppose the two men getting together on their own time, after all, the state has no business in their homes. 
But expressing it in a Christian chapel? I draw the line there. 

Lets say that they are Catholic and they want to get married in a Catholic chapel. This affects soldiers who are Catholic, if they do get married there, the chapel no longer stands for its Catholic value, and we can persume that it does not stand for any of the others. Us Catholic soldiers would see no point of going there. Then there‘s no point of having a Catholic Chapel.



> If you allow heterosexual marriages in the Military chapels, then there *is no excuse* not to allow homosexual marriages in the same chapels. No excuse what so ever. Besides of course blatant unfounded bigotry.


Yes there is, the excuse is our salvation. As a catholic, i believe that if we allow this to happen in our holy chapels, then we are damed to eternal punishment. 



> If the religious beliefs do not accept the sexuality of some people, then the government should should be boycotting these bigoted religions until they do get with the times.


What the heck is that suppose to mean? That the government should follow the path of Hitler? Boycott us according to our religion?     

I would really like to suggest that you think before you say things!!!


----------



## brin11

> If the religious beliefs do not accept the sexuality of some people, then the government should should be boycotting these bigoted religions until they do get with the times.


I disagree with this statement.  I don‘t think the state has any business boycotting any religion per se for any of their beliefs.  Saying that, legal marriage and religious marriage should be separated.  If you choose to be married religiously, please do so in the religious chapel that you choose.  If you wish to be married legally no religion is necessary.  Homosexual marriage should be deemed a legal marriage.  If homosexuals wish to pursue a religious marriage they should attempt to do so if they wish but the state has no business interfering with religious ideals.

As for this case, if the military chapel is catholic (I have no idea if it is) and has been allowing RMC students of other faiths to marry there they have no reason to ban homosexuals from marrying there.  If only catholics have been allowed to marry there then they should have the right to refuse this marriage.  Again, I have no idea if this chapel is catholic or multi-faith, I‘m sort of using this as an example.

As someone of no religion, I personally couldn‘t care less who is marrying who in any religious building.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Wasn‘t Hitler a devout Catholic? I seem to remember this from someplace.


----------



## willy

The right of a church or other such group to exercise discretion in who it will or will not perform services for is a completely separate issue.  The thing is that the military chapel at RMC is not a Catholic church, nor a Muslim mosque, nor a Mormon temple, etc.  It isn‘t the exclusive province of any denomination, it‘s a multifaith facility that exists for the benefit of all RMC students.  The chapel wouldn‘t turn away a Wiccan or an atheist, so why should they turn this guy away?


----------



## brin11

> The chapel wouldn‘t turn away a Wiccan or an atheist, so why should they turn this guy away?


Exactly.


----------



## Jason Bourne

I think the distinction to be made here is the Chapel is a MILITARY institution (the RMC one specifically) as compared to a civilian one.  I‘m sure in a civiilian church there would be more or no tolorence depending on what your point of view it..or what the view the church body holds. However, being a military church, and the military being a federal institution one has little choice (in my opinion now..) when it comes to having a discussion with gays not marrying and what not. Its pointless..they‘re going to do it anyway. It if was a civilian church (and in most cases, self governing) that there would be room for argument. Just my thoughts..


----------



## alan_li_13

huh...they don‘t have seperate denomination chapels? Never thought bout that...
They had different ones when i was at Borden. 

NEways, then i guess i don‘t have any problems with them...

As for Hitler... He THOUGHT he was a devout catholic. We are still awaiting his excommunication.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

meh


----------



## SFontaine

If it stays in the bedroom I don‘t care. Just don‘t bring it to my church and don‘t try to force your views onto me or my family.

There‘s my stance.


----------



## willy

> Originally posted by SFontaine:
> ...don‘t try to force your views onto me or my family.
> 
> There‘s my stance. [/QB]


Also an excellent argument in favour of allowing gay marriage.  Even if you don‘t agree with it, it doesn‘t affect you personally, so butt out.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

> Also an excellent argument in favour of allowing gay marriage. Even if you don‘t agree with it, it doesn‘t affect you personally, so butt out


This is my view too.  Psychologically, there is still a lot we don‘t know about what causes homosexuality, but there have been a few genetic connections made, that demonstrate that it is not simply a ‘lifestyle choice‘.

Think of it at a biological level if (theoretically) people opposed attraction to the opposite sex, and publically slandered you for your behaviour.  Can you simply change how you feel (on a hormonal/biological level) to conform to the crowd?  I don‘t think so.  Thats the argument for accepting gay people in society.  And continuing, its only logical that some homosexuals will want to marry, since many heterosexuals have the same desires.  Why not let them?  They probably can‘t help how they feel any more than straight people can help liking members of the opposite sex.

It just seems too much like homosexuals have become the discriminated group of this generation, replacing Jews, black people or the Irish (stupid irish    ).  How will people look at these times 100 years from now?

People don‘t have to agree with homosexuality, but they don‘t need to stand in other peoples‘ way, if they can‘t help their sexual preference.

Just my two cents.  Please don‘t flame this too much, I am tired and need sleep   :boring:


----------



## 1feral1

I live in a city which has the highest GAY population in th world. Whole gay suburbs exist here.

Ya, and I am from Redneckland, back in Saskatchewan, and I really had to adjust when I arrived in Sydney. Let me tell you! It was a shocker! Now its just an everyday occurance, and when I have company out from Canada, they just cant believe what they see here.

Seeing leather clad blokes in chaps with the bum cut out, having a deep passionate kiss on a corner is the normal here, and did I get my eyes open the first time I observed such activity.

When I was single a few friends and I were chasing some QANTAS air hostesses one night, and went along with these girls to a party in Padington, and it was full of gay guys from the airline. So me being almost legless, fresh of the boat from Canada said to this one guy " you know for being a gay guy you sure got big arms" (and he did). He replied "you would too if you held mens legs back all night long". I never forgot that, and I have never opend my mouth before thinking since.

At one unit I was posted to we had a officer, a Major who was entirley and totally gay in every sence of the word.

During PT one morning I nearly lost it when we saw love bites and hickys on the back of his neck.

At a mess dinner, he introduced my GF and I to his ‘partner‘ Maxwell.

I was also present when he was in the Q Store one time saying "RQ, I hate to be such a pain in the bum, but I need to replace my DPCU pants", then realising what he had said in front of 10 of us, he cupped his hand over his mouth and giggled like a school girl. The look on everyone‘s faces was enough to stop traffic, and I nearly ****ed my pants laughing later. 

All his flaunting his sexuality was outragous, with every gay mannerism you could imagine especially if he was tired or been into the grog. Sadly no one really listened to him, but in the admin roll he as great.

Also at another unit smoker, a CPL form outside the unit showed him much disrespect (not as being gay, but being an officer), and I got up and had a go at the CPL, (who was later charged).

The Major, just shrugged it off, and I could not let it go, as insubordination is a key root in circumventing the chain of command, and all it stands for. All this infront of say 175 personnel too, all who were deep in the grog, partying after the end of another long exercise.

Not long after he was posted, he was seriously injured in a prang. He was in hospital for about 3 months, and has recovered.

At the end of the day, he is a fair man, and was/is a good officer, but the men saw him more as a joke than an officer, and a leader, and that because was the way he carried himself within the unit.

I respected the rank he has, and as wierd as it seems, he is an alright bloke. He knew that we knew what he was all about, and the rest is history.

So what am I saying? Frankly if a bloke can do his job, and do it effectivly, I dont care who he/she sleeps with, but just dont flaunt ones homosexuality in my face. 

Am I a homophobe? Confessions, confessions, ya I might have been in the past, but at 44 yrs old, I would safely say, I know my sexuality, and I am not afraid of the G Force. 

BTW the ADF even has a Gay float in Sydney‘s International Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras held every March.

Have I seen it? Only on the 10.30 news!

Remember, be tolerant. I am (mostly anyway).

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Gunner

> So me being almost legless, fresh of the boat from Canada said to this one guy " you know for being a gay guy you sure got big arms" (and he did). He replied "you would too if you held mens legs back all night long". I never forgot that, and I have never opend my mouth before thinking since.


A great comment to read when you wake up on a Saturday morning!  I have been in a few situations like that (mouth engaging before brain does...) Congratulations Wes, you have my vote for comment of the day!


----------



## Infanteer

Serious question here.  If we are going to open marriage up along the lines of a contract between people, why don‘t we allow polygamy?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If that makes people happy, no one is getting hurt or exploited then why not?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

I hate what the people do, not the people. I am tolerant, but in no way condone their lifestyle.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Shortbus why is it hurting you? You say your tolerant but by your very statement you are not. Can‘t have it both ways.


----------



## nbk

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] Serious question here.  If we are going to open marriage up along the lines of a contract between people, why don‘t we allow polygamy? [/qb]


That would solve so many of my problems...if there was some way to get to get my girls to accept that then I could introduce them to one another and we could all be one happy family.

I have heard arguments that it would not promote genetic diversity and all that...but I doubt that our species is really in trouble of dying out.

I think the main hurdle in bringing in a polygamy law would be to get people (the women at least) to accept it. I do believe one can love and care about more then one person at the same time, as I know it from my own experience. Now I dont know if my partners would see things my way, but if society was more accepting to it...well it would be great for everyone. Just imagine having all the money from a team of working women, plus what I would make with my career. We could live in a giant house with a pool and spend all day making dozens of children.

There is also plenty of economic problems and soforth that arise from it as well, so it would probably end up causing more problems then it solved if it were to be introduced.

But it works in more civilized countries like Saudi Arabia (    ), so there is no reason why it would not work here.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

I believe what they do is wrong, unnatural and I dont condone it. By saying Im tolerant, Im saying I leave them to themselves. Kind of a "you go your way, I‘ll go mine" type of scenario.

By tolerant, do you mean accepting? because if so, then I must not be tolerant.


----------



## alan_li_13

Amen to that, Brother


----------



## CDNBlackhawk

i wont even get into this post, it seems i will just probably start a posting war with a few people on my beliefs on this matter.
But i will say this! 

Is it really necesary to have a news article on this crap. i mean come on, for the people who dont believe in this. it really throws it in everyones face.

It‘s Ridiculous!!!!


----------



## The_Falcon

Man their are a lot a biggoted people here.  Is this a publicity stunt? Very likely it is. But no more so than what we see in the media regarding hetro celeberities and thier marriages.  Do we condemn them? No. If to people are that committed to each that they want state publicly that they wish to remain together for the rest of their lives. Good for them. If they want to have some sort of eleborate cermony (religous or otherwise) to celebrate the fact they are now committed to each other, great. The fact is, what they are doing will not hurt you at all.  If the so called "homosexual lifestyle" offends you and your morals, get over yourself.  For all the love thy neighbour BS from the Christian religions especially, you are all a hypocritical-intolerant bunch (for those who must know I was raised Irish Catholic). 

And to Michael Dorosh, your comment relating gay marriage to marry a dog or a 12 year old, or a relative.  Well, if you wanna marry a dog, thats your business, but as was said before the dog can‘t enter into any sort of contract, so I guess you are SOL.  As for marrying a 12 year old and a relative.  Anybody remember Jerry Lee Lewis. He did both. He married his 13 year old cousin. Yeah you might say that was America, but you know what that sort of thing is considered normal in some cultures (if I am not mistaken, you could still have done this in Canada not that long ago), and who would we be say otherwise.


----------



## rdschultz

hey, if they were to allow polygamy, would that mean you could get multiple separation entitlements?  Because I‘d be all over that.


----------



## Jason Bourne

....****....


----------



## winchable

*pssshh*
Seriously guys, if you‘re going to get all twisted over something like this and let it get to you, than you‘ve become every hippy who has cared too much, every politically correct wiener who lets every last thing become their biggest prob.
If it doesn‘t harm you, let ‘er go. If you don‘t like it, fiiiine, we can still all get along.

I have the greatest gay anecdote, on a side note, almost as good as Wesley‘s Major.
Walked into a gay "cabaret" a few days afer my 19th, Had NO idea it was a gay bar (obviously sauced beyond anything) and all I kept thinking was "wow, everyones really nice here, they keep buying me drinks" you have to understand that this gay bar wasn‘t full of men, there were alot of women there too, so it was a tough call.
Guy bought me a drink, didn‘t think anything of it until it was time to leave and about 40 guys tried to give me their number and told me to call them.
Now something you have to expect about bars is that somewhere, sometime you are going to meet a gay guy who is going to try and pick you up, how you react to it is what‘s key.
In these cases I just went.."yeah...wait...hang on...what the ****??!?!?"
After the first 5 phone numbers, I started to get a little suspicious I guess, and I asked my friend "Hey....this is a gay bar isn‘t it???"

To shorten the story somewhat, as a joke we told a group of guys wearing ***-less leather chaps (villiage people coverband, stereotype alert) that my buddy (super homophobe, don‘t even know how we dragged him in that bar) just broke up with his boyfriend and was on the rebound.

Anyway..frickin hey, moral of the story, always read the fine print under a sign before you let your buddies talk you into going to a bar because "They have alot of pool tables."

Seriously though, there really is no need to get all bunched up about this whole topic. If a gay person wants to get married that‘s fine if they can find a church (**** they don‘t even need to find a church anymore). If the church is willing to do it, then hey, no one outside of that church really has any right to make a judgement on it. Even then, if you don‘t like it, this is Canada there‘s probably another church a block away that won‘t condone gay marriages. In any case, what a person does behind closed doors is definetly their business and not anyone elses, gay or straight. I don‘t want to hear about someones gay experience the night before anymore than I want to hear about someone tapping their old lady/man the night before.

People complain that it is defiling the "sacred institute of marriage",bullshit, people have been doing that with divorce (No offence intended really) since king Henry. Marriage is nothing more then an easier way of filing taxes unless there‘s some love there, he-he, she-she, he-she, she-he, doesn‘t make a wink of a difference to how I view my own relationship with regards to marriage.

On the flipside, there‘s no need to flaunt it if you are gay. It‘s annoying when straight people make out on a street corner, it‘s annoying when gay people make out on a street corner. I think recently a group of gay peple started making out and "Fondling" each other at Ralph Klein‘s pancake breakast, well wtf, if straight people did that it would be just as wierd.

Anyway, let it slide either way unless the gay guys are beating you over the head with a bat until you put on Barbara.


----------



## bossi

Hmmm ... another Navy guy, eh? (CHUCKLE!!!!)


----------



## winchable

...Blast, I should‘ve seen that one coming.


----------



## Spr.Earl

> Originally posted by bossi:
> [qb] Hmmm ... another Navy guy, eh? (CHUCKLE!!!!) [/qb]


As Churchill said "the Navy built it‘s rep on Rum,Bum and Tobac"

Come here Billy let me show you the Golden Rivet.


----------



## bossi

> ...Blast, I should‘ve seen that one coming.


"Cue the laugh track" ...

1.  Of course you didn‘t see it (something about "eyes in the back of your head" ... ?)

2.  "... that one coming."  (LOL!!! Say no more!)

3.  Hmmm ... I always thought it was "Rum, bum and the lash."  (and, no - it‘s not a reference to leather bars ...)

4.  Now I‘m confused - it‘s like that episode of Star Trek where Capt Kirk says "everything he says is a lie" ... (i.e. who‘s the "straight" man in this stand-up comedy cabaret ... ???)


----------



## winchable

"The golden rivet sir?"*high pitched billy voice*

Bossi-Zing..Touche


----------



## bossi

> Touche?


HEY!  It‘s only allowed - not encouraged - keep your mitts to yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

LOL come on bossi we know you want it .


----------



## bossi

Aaaarrr, Matey!  Another Navy guy pipes up ...
(why are we NOT surprised ...)


----------



## winchable

Yarr--The sailors are always the pitchers. LOL
Have ye ever been to sea Bossi?


----------



## Duotone81

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by bossi:
> [qb] Hmmm ... another Navy guy, eh? (CHUCKLE!!!!) [/qb]
> 
> 
> 
> As Churchill said "the Navy built it‘s rep on Rum,Bum and Tobac"
> 
> Come here Billy let me show you the Golden Rivet.      [/qb]
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO!!     That‘s too funny.


----------



## 1feral1

Another gay quote. A Australian Rugby player naemd Ian Roberts who is openly gay and came out of the closet a while back recently retired from the sport.

He has taken up acting, and in a recent interview on the Footy Show (Thurs nights on the 9 Network), he was asked if he was going to be a good actor and he said "yes, after all I acted straight for the  first 25 yrs of my life". 

Hummm...

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Jarnhamar

Seems like these days you can only have an opinion if it‘s politically correct. Step off the narrow PC path and your a bigot or racist.

i kinda feel like a monster because theres a few cultures i dont like very much and some sexual things that some people do in which i find repulsive. I‘ve never do anything to harm or hinder someone from either example i‘ve given, i just make the personal choice not to associate with them because of how i was brought up and what i believe in.  What they do is their buisness, why can‘t what i like be mine?

Also, everyone wants to do away witht he silly old army traditions because this is the NEW army. Yet everyone says the army isn‘t what it used to be. it‘s nothing like the old days. Thats sending a bit of a mixed up signal IMHO.


----------



## Northern Touch

Call me what you want, I disagree with gay / lesbian marriages because, well, its physically incompatable.  If you take it down to the core, we are mammals, and mammals reproduce man and women.   Man with man or women with women just dont go together on the physical level. I dont hate gays or lesbians or anyone with a different sexual preference, I just dont agree with it.  Sorta seems like trying to open a lock with a pen.  The pen just wont fit in like a key.  (bad analogy I know, but my personal opinion)

If they want to get married, I‘m fine with that.  It doesn‘t affect me in anyway.  However, if they were trying to do it to claim discrimination of some sort later on, that I totally disagree with that.


----------



## Infanteer

Since when has marriage become a matter revolving around intercourse.  How many people have gotten married for the sole purpose of breeding?  I think affection goes beyond your simple, physiological explanation.

If your going to form opinions, you may as well try and back it up with decent facts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Well I kind of agree with Northern Touch, Infanteer. I lived with my wife for almost 6 years before we got married and the reason we finally did get married was because it was time for children. I‘ve never really understood the getting married to "prove" your love or just to say your taken. **** just piss on her leg before she leaves in the morning.  You show your love by your actions everyday and not some one-day three ring circus show. We took our vows because of the comittment to raise our children with a mommy and a daddy. On this subject I am terribly old-fashioned, once you have children their lives are infinetely more important than yours.  CHEERS


----------



## Jungle

I think there are a number of reasons marriage was "invented". It certainly has a lot to do with love and commitment between two persons. But there is probably more... Originally, it may have had something to do with jealousies and fights that came with people sleeping around in small communities, thus two persons commiting to one another and making it public so others would‘t interfere (I guess that worked most of the time     ).
Certainly another reason was to try to provide children a stable environment to be raised in, under a mother and father who shared the different aspects of everyday life. This also promoted the social values under which people evolved.
I don‘t hate homosexuals either, but don‘t agree with the lifestyle. They are certainly allowed to do whatever they want with their life, but I think "gay pride" is taking things too far, and so is gay marriage. After all, I‘m not proud to be heterosexual... happy, but not proud.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] Seems like these days you can only have an opinion if it‘s politically correct. Step off the narrow PC path and your a bigot or racist.
> 
> i kinda feel like a monster because theres a few cultures i dont like very much and some sexual things that some people do in which i find repulsive. I‘ve never do anything to harm or hinder someone from either example i‘ve given, i just make the personal choice not to associate with them because of how i was brought up and what i believe in.  What they do is their buisness, why can‘t what i like be mine?
> 
> Also, everyone wants to do away witht he silly old army traditions because this is the NEW army. Yet everyone says the army isn‘t what it used to be. it‘s nothing like the old days. Thats sending a bit of a mixed up signal IMHO. [/qb]


Exactly right on all counts.  And it isn‘t just the Army that isn‘t what it used to be; the entire nation was built on hard work and personal sacrifice, now it is simply a matter of getting what you can from a bloated government who steals from the poor to give to the poor.  WCB claims and EI and insurance claims and lawsuits and welfare and lottery tickets have replaced the work ethic in many homes.  You can now add homosexuals jumping on the bandwagon looking for exemptions.


----------



## brin11

Bruce,

Your children would still have a mommy and daddy regardless of whether you are married or not.  Did you marry because you thought your children would suffer if it wasn‘t legal?  I‘m not trying to irritate here, just trying to understand where the compulsion comes from.  LOL  

Personally, the only reasons I see for marriage are:  1.  legality between the two partners.  Some provinces don‘t recognize common law marriage as equal to legal marriage  2.  religious reasons.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Brin11, No totally understandable question. What I meant was that we made a committment that went beyond us. It may sound silly to some, but I would live with Satan herself[I‘m not] to ensure that my girls get the good-old-fashioned mommy and daddy upbringing. I‘m not slagging those that don‘t here but thats the way I am. I waited untill I was 33 before kids[BK] because I wanted to be 100% sure that I could give them my complete attention.   CHEERS


----------



## brin11

Thanks Bruce.


----------



## Northern Touch

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] Since when has marriage become a matter revolving around intercourse.  How many people have gotten married for the sole purpose of breeding?  I think affection goes beyond your simple, physiological explanation.
> [/qb]


Yes of coarse marriage goes beyond and deals with things such as affection, love, intimacy, commitment, passion and a great deal many more things im sure, but i was merly pointing out a different view.  

Intercoarse IS a part of marriage. Is that not a reason why  it is tradition to consummate the marriage on the wedding night through intercoarse?  (Consummate:To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.)  Can you get that with a same sex couple?


----------



## Infanteer

> Can you get that with a same sex couple?


You obviously haven‘t seen the porn that flys around the shacks....

So, if were baseing marriage strongly upon intercourse and procreation, are we to forbid infertile males or females from marrying?  How about elderly people have moved beyond that stage of their life and are seeking a companion to end their lives with?  Are we to deny them marriage on these grounds?

I think before we start commiting ourselves to forbidding same-sex marriage we should get a firm grasp on what marriage is first.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I know many have distorted this, but basically, this is what it comes down to.


----------



## Eowyn

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
> 
> I know many have distorted this, but basically, this is what it comes down to. [/qb]


And that definition is discriminatory on one of the prohibitive grounds in the Charter.

  15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


----------



## Harris

Not to put too fine a point on it but no one asked me if I agreed to all of the Charter‘s "rules".  There are some I agree with, and some I don‘t.  But all I see now are people using the Charter as a shield/weapon, rather than a guide for how we should be treated and live our lives.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Whatever one chooses to believe about marriage, defining it as union between man and woman is not discriminatory on a Charter basis.  Everyone has the identical privilege to marry one person of the opposite sex.  Whether one cares to exercise a particular privilege or right is of no importance.

In order to develop the argument that the definitions is discriminatory, one must assume that the basis of marriage is to exercise sexuality.  However, I suppose the basis of marriage is to provide a secure unit for the primary purpose of child-rearing, with the implication that the couple is capable of procreation.  Procreation is of course not the only means of obtaining a child to raise.  Nevertheless, if marriage were not exclusively valued for the purpose of child-rearing, I should think any one of a number of societies or civilizations which antedates our own and was not exclusively heterosexual might have implemented marriage for other purposes.  Which societies did or do provide for that?

If Canadians want to redefine marriage as primarily an exercise in commitment to monogamous sexual practices or the establishment of a partnership which grants certain rights and privileges, then maybe that redefinition should be the first step.  Or, maybe we can leave marriage to be decided by established religions and develop an irreligious alternative suitable for the political and civil area of influence.  As an irreligious person, I am prepared to develop such an alternative rather than force state pseudo-religion down the throats of others.


----------



## brin11

Brad, isn‘t there already an alternative?  Many marriages are secular in origin since the ceremony is overseen by a person with secular powers (marriage commissioner, captain of a ship).  In my understanding people can certainly obtain a secular marriage if they choose or they may decide to marry in a religious setting where the person overseeing the marriage (clergy, etc.) has the power to cause a LEGAL marriage to take place.  Can anyone explain if the powers of clergy to marry are automatic or if they need to become a marriage commissioner as well?  If homosexuals were to be married only by non-religious persons would this make everyone feel better?


----------



## Brad Sallows

If there is an alternative, why all the fuss?  It seems to me the alternative must not be entirely satisfactory.

I doubt everyone is going to feel better regardless of the solution(s).  Some people are "for" or "against" quite viscerally.

Despite my lack of religious affiliation and my complete disinterest in being a member of any sort of exclusive club, I find myself progressively more annoyed at the continued assault on freedoms of religion and association under the guise of anti-discrimination.


----------



## brin11

Brad, I agree.  Obviously, the alternative to religious marriage is not satisfactory and some homosexuals will want a religious marriage.  I believe they should be entitled to a legal marriage just as heterosexuals are but, when it comes to religious marriages, its up to the church or religion itself to decide whether this would be offered. The problem is, not many places recognize homosexual marriages in the legal sense.  Hopefully, as this changes many will be satisfied and be able to enjoy the same entitlements a legal marriage offers just like everyone else.


----------



## Northern Touch

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you get that with a same sex couple?
> 
> 
> 
> So, if were baseing marriage strongly upon intercourse and procreation, are we to forbid infertile males or females from marrying?  How about elderly people have moved beyond that stage of their life and are seeking a companion to end their lives with?  Are we to deny them marriage on these grounds?
> 
> I think before we start commiting ourselves to forbidding same-sex marriage we should get a firm grasp on what marriage is first. [/qb]
Click to expand...

Never did I mention forbidding a marriage of any kind.  I simply stated that I don‘t believe in same sex marriages.  In fact, if you look at my first post I said "If they want to get married, fine, it doesn‘t affect me in anyway".  

When marriage goes from being the legal union of a man and women as husband and wife, to the legal union of two persons, then no one will be able to forbide it since two persons can be of the same sex.  Of coarse, people will always be able to disagree.


----------



## Sask HCAO

Air base hosts 1st military gay wedding
Last Updated Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:40:02 EDT 
CBC News

Two men were married in the chapel at Nova Scotia's Greenwood air base in May, in what's being called the Canadian military's first gay wedding. 

Lt.-Cmdr. David Greenwood, the base's head chaplain, said a sergeant and a warrant officer were married May 3 in front of about 45 guests. 

"This couple had been waiting a very long, long time," said Greenwood, declining to give their names because he hadn't asked for permission. 

Last September, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, effectively changing the definition of marriage in the province to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." 
The military has said it's willing to host gay weddings in jurisdictions where it's legal. 

Greenwood, an Anglican, did not perform the marriage in May, making the arrangements for the service while a United Church minister from nearby Wolfville performed the vows. 

"I looked after the co-ordination in accordance with our military policy of receiving the couple with dignity and respect," said Greenwood. 

"I was there to preach and welcome the community on behalf of the base chaplaincy." 

While most Anglican dioceses in Canada do not perform same-sex marriages, the Canadian church has postponed its official decision until 2007. 

Greenwood said the ceremony was relaxed and low-key, and there wasn't a dry eye in sight when the couple signed the marriage documents. 

Greenwood said he has been told that a second same-sex marriage may be in the works at CFB Valcartier in Quebec later in the year. 

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country, but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs. 

Federal politicians are now considering a same-sex marriage bill. 

Currently, same-sex marriages performed in seven provinces and one territory are legal and must be recognized. Same-sex marriages are not performed in Alberta, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but the Nunavut government will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.


----------



## Hunter

Seems ironic to me, considering the study that was published calling us a bunch of violent thugs and rednecks, that the CF policy on the subject is enacted before the federal policy is put into law.  I wonder what the lefties think about that.


----------



## mover1

Actually the CF had recognised same sex couples for year. I say YAY to that. Let them get married and have the same benefits that I do.   Let them live and love and be happy. Then get separated and divorced. Then we will see the courts have to balance out their thinking   and treat people as human beings and not as bad man, poor   woman. Even though she ran off with your sponser while you were on tour. finding yourself as a single paret and then when the baloon goes up And your on another tour. You find out that they are posted and taking your kids with you. Not that I am bitter or anything. 

Seriously though. Gay marrage is ok in my books.


----------



## dutchie

I prefer the term 'Psuedo-Marriages' when referring to same-sex 'marriages', but hey, that's just me.


----------



## Gunner

I think this is a non-issue with most CF members. As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I believe the government should stay away from the term marriage and concentrate on the civil union requirements.  Marriage is religious in nature (in my book) and should be left to the various religiouis leaders and their communities whether they will perform them for same sex couples.


----------



## dutchie

Gunner said:
			
		

> I think this is a non-issue with most CF members. As I mentioned in another thread on this subject, I believe the government should stay away from the term marriage and concentrate on the civil union requirements.   Marriage is religious in nature (in my book) and should be left to the various religiouis leaders and their communities whether they will perform them for same sex couples.



Here, here. 

As well, does anybody else find it funny that the Government is so determined to push through something that is not supported by the vast majority of Canadians?


----------



## c4th

Hasn't everyone had enough of this topic during sharp training?


----------



## Infanteer

I'm not gay and I'm not married, so I could care less what these guys (or gals) are doing.

Seriously, is this something that will have any real affect on anyone?


----------



## dutchie

c4th said:
			
		

> Hasn't everyone had enough of this topic during sharp training?



Now that you mentioned it, yeah, I have. 

To try and steer this into a new and 'safe' direction.....

What about padres? A Catholic padre will be bound by his beliefs to not recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. However, as a Federal Government employee liscenced to perform weddings, he would be required to perform them (IIRC). 

How is that resolved? 

note: I will refrain from injecting my personal opinion of same-sex marriage and I hope that those that respond will do the same.


----------



## Bartok5

The only new development that I see here is the actual marriage/union ceremony.   As others have already pointed out, the CF has been recognizing same-sex "marriage" for years now.   I administered my first statutory declaration of common-law "marriage" between two males (one serviceman, one civilian) back in 1999.   I must admit that although I have no particularly strong opinions either for or against the notion, it did strike me (at the time) as being rather surreal having to sit two men down and question them on the duration of their relationship, the extent of their commitment to one another, then counsel them regarding the legal and financial implications of their decision.   At the end of the day, I simply shrugged my shoulders and witnessed the "union".   No skin off my nose.   Each to their own tends to be my personal philosophy.   

If nothing else, the CF's position on same-sex marriage clearly demonstrates the socially progressive nature of the institution.   Assuming that such initiatives do not negatively impact upon operational capability, such policies are not necessarily a bad thing IMO.   Perception is everything.....


----------



## c4th

Caesar said:
			
		

> What about padres? A Catholic padre will be bound by his beliefs to not recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. However, as a Federal Government employee liscenced to perform weddings, he would be required to perform them (IIRC).



Padres are not required to perform marriage services contrary to the rules of their denomination.   As all service members are entitled to marriage services the padre is responsible to find an alternate to perform the service.


----------



## dutchie

c4th said:
			
		

> As all service members are entitled to marriage services the padre is responsible to find an alternate to perform the service.



And I guess that's the key. Thanks.

BTW, I assume this responsibility to find alternate means originated not in same-sex unions/marriages, but in marriages of non-Christian people? As in, the Padre could not marry two Buddhists or Muslims in a ceremony of their faith, so they were to find alternate means?


----------



## LF(CMO)

Just another sign of the continuing depravity and degradation of society and the CF in general.  Other examples are the refusal of the soldier to remove his headcover on Remembrance Day, women in combat roles and the reluctance of the Canadian electorate to rid themselves of the corrupt, immoral Liberal Govt.

 BTW: I could care less what anyones 'sexual preference" is.  Gay marriage is illogical and simply stupid.  It is merely an attempt to add 'normalcy' to something they know is inherently wrong!  I find it very amusing to see how people can come on here and justify anything.  Soon they will be 'marriying' people and animals or some such wiedo thing and guaranteed someone will come on here and find some way to justify it!


----------



## Island Ryhno

Why don't you tell us how you really feel there (LF)!    I say; whatever turns your crank. If a couple of Joes or Janes are in it for the long haul (no pun intended) then have at er, jeez maybe they can make marriage a lasting institution again. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go find a blowup doll who will say "I do"


----------



## c4th

Caesar said:
			
		

> BTW, I assume this responsibility to find alternate means originated



See QR&O Vol 1 Art 33.01 through 33.03


----------



## Gramps

[glow=red,2,300]Quote from Infanteer. "I'm not gay and I'm not married, so I could care less what these guys (or gals) are doing.
Seriously, is this something that will have any real affect on anyone?"[/glow]


I couldnt agree more. All I have to say is "Who Cares".


----------



## Trinity

I'm rather shocked by the intolerance by some of the members of this board.

The insults without any facts = discrimination.  

Its not about whether the government wants it or the people want it.  Its
about individual rights.  Even if they are a minority, if we are supressing or deny
a right to them allowed to others then it must be corrected under law.

No one is going to force churches to marry anyone.
No one is going to start marrying sheep.
No one is going to do anything they don't have to do.

And as for the Co-ed shower comment. Please..  
1) The likelihood of that happening is small to none.  I think the would have more
self control than that.
2) I think you could handle it by excusing yourself and telling a Sgt or officer.  

Why would a gay person hit on you in the shower. Why not the mess, why not your office?
How does being married = having shower with members of the same sex.  

If you recognize my avatar then you know my trade.
Irregardless of my PERSONAL position, it is a JUSTICE ISSUE plain and simple.
We are denying them rights that we have ourselves.  

Ive actually studied this issue and discussed it for years.  These boards do nothing
but spread hatred and mis-information.


----------



## winchable

Infanteers got it right on the money, let's all give a great big whooooooo caaaaaaares.
I suppose that all a gay person wants is to be regarded as equal, no more no less, the kind of media attention this sort of thing puts the "no more" idea right out the window.

That being said, if someone actually wants to give a marriage... union...jumping over a broomstick...tying the knot, commitment ceremony (honestly have no idea what the correct term is) a go with skyrocketing divorce rates, the acceptance of marital infidelity into mainstream society, the prospect of custody battles....and the number of other wonderful benefits of being..unionized..married (if someone knows the correct term, please tell me) I dont care what parts they're operating in their drawers; as long as they don't trick me into picking them up at a bar...taking me back to their place...feeding me a lovely meal complete with a bottle of nice wine...telling me how handsome I am only to spring Mr. Kanish out at the last minute............*Che regresses inward as repressed memories flood to the surface*

Seriously though, I suppose everyone has a right to be against it, that's one of those big bonuses of living in a society with liberties, but if anyone truly values liberty they'll take it like they would an interacial/interreligious, rare (though getting less and less rare of course) but nothing to get consumed over.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Same arguments were made against interracial marriages years ago.   The state of marriage is in dire straights as it is caused by exclusively heterosexuals so let them have a crack at it.


----------



## HItorMiss

To add some levity and a sense of shock I give to you:


http://web.archive.org/web/20020811022657/home.wanadoo.nl/mh/artworks/cv2.htm


See Trinity people are already marrying sheep, or in this case a Horse.....


----------



## Trinity

yeah...  OK... i can't believe he admitting to having sex with a horse

Lets clarify this...

humans can consent to marriage

Marriage is not a church thing, but a legal/contractual agreement made through the state/city/town/etc.

I don't know what country would legally/contractually accept a marriage between a human and an animal.
Thus, doubt can be raised about this and other animal cases due to
1) no legal contract
2) no consent

(that goes for the guy with the blow up doll too)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Bigotry in any form is wrong plain and simple. Whats the difference between you disgareeing with gay marriage and serving with an African Canadian? 30 years ago the notion of doing so would have invoked the same degree of horror you seem to be showing over what should be a basic human right.


----------



## andpro

Who cares people get married evry day. This was just a bit different. Like others allready said I does not affect any off us so we should let it go. As for the sheep I have been talking to one he is appaled by your comments Joe Gunner.


----------



## limyjack

I don't care if you like to date poodles while wearing a dress - just as long as you don't come to my house asking to date my poddle or borrow my wife's dress.


----------



## muskrat89

My personal views on this have shifted slightly over time, more to what Trinity suggests. That is thanks, in part - to the discussions on this board, actually. Taking into account, all of the great points made by the voices of reason, I am interested in their views as applied to polygamists. Should we not treat the individual rights of say, 3 people the same as we should be considering the individual rights of 2 people? Is it logical to say "Yes" to same-sex couples, but "No" to polygamists?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Muskrat....I agree. If 3 people want to form some sort of union then why cannot we let them? I think polygamy gets a bad rep in a lot of cases due to the sickos that marry 12-14 year old girls. If 3 adults wish to do so then why not? The only problems I see is if one or more want out and then if money, children, property are involved , then you will have a major cluster*uck.


----------



## Infanteer

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> Just another sign of the continuing depravity and degradation of society and the CF in general.   Other examples are the refusal of the soldier to remove his headcover on Remembrance Day, women in combat roles and the reluctance of the Canadian electorate to rid themselves of the corrupt, immoral Liberal Govt.



Well, seeing how I am a morally depraved individual who seems to get by serving in a military that allows gay couples to receive the same treatment as heteros and that women are allowed to stand up and serve their country as well, I guess I'll be satisfied with moving on to more important things (ie: things that are operationally relevent and focus on real issues of defence) and leave you behind to bemoan the end of society.



> BTW: I could care less what anyones 'sexual preference" is.   Gay marriage is illogical and simply stupid.   It is merely an attempt to add 'normalcy' to something they know is inherently wrong!   I find it very amusing to see how people can come on here and justify anything.   Soon they will be 'marriying' people and animals or some such wiedo thing and guaranteed someone will come on here and find some way to justify it!



There certainly needs to be a firm line, in terms of legal definitions, drawn on who can and cannot be married, if anything to end the controversy.   However, I can't see any reason (in a legal sense) for putting it on sex.   Every reason used to argue it as needing two people of the opposite sex seems to fall flat on its face (love, children, tradition, etc, etc).   I think the line can be safely drawn at two people (thus eliminating polygamy from the debate).

In the end, mind your own business, because getting wrapped around the axle with other people's personal life is just being foolish.   If you are worried about being around gay men then, as my buddy used to say, "Don't worry, cause you ain't that hot anyways...."


----------



## NavComm

Joe Gunner said:
			
		

> As long as they don't allow the sheep serving in the canadian forces to get married.
> >



I think that's only legal in Scotland and some parts of Wales (just kidding!)  >


----------



## Infanteer

I could really care less about polygamy - if consenting adults who care for each other are willing to form a "household" and accept the legal obligations to eachother, then so be it.  If their religious authority wishes to spiritually bless the affair, then all the best to them; it is none of my concern.

As far as I understand it, the "legal" definition of marriage concerns the relationship of the married people to the state.  The "spiritual" defintion of marriage concerns the relationship of the married people to a higher plane/power; and that is up for them and their religion to decide.  As far as the legal definition goes, all I am really concerned about is consent (thus eliminating animals, children, and inanimate objects), no criminal code violations (I think we can stick incest here), and a legal framework of obligations and entitlements.

Think about it, other than that, there are no "hard lines" that we can legally hold married people to; consider all these "man and woman" things:

- Love (prearranged marriages certainly aren't based on this, although it is hoped that it will later form)
- Children (many couples get married and choose not to have children)
- Tradition ("man and woman" is not the only "tradition"; certainly in our past somewhere, men have taken on multiple wives, while in many ancient societies, marrying within the family was "traditionally acceptable" and preferred)


----------



## honestyrules

IMHO, 
I think it is more a political situation than anything else. Ok, there is a lot of homosexuals in Canada (not more than anywhere else though), and the government has to make them happy (they are taxpayers and voters!).

DND always implement Government rules and laws, so it's normal that this happens now. It was just a matter of time.


----------



## andpro

Why even bring up polygamy it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marrage. It is a totally different thing. I know they are both religiously wrong but that is as much they share. I think gays should have the right but the churches should also have the right to preform these ceremonies or not. This argument could go on forever. This topic should be locked before people start taking offence to some remarks (regardless of the side of the debate).


----------



## Infanteer

andpro said:
			
		

> Why even bring up polygamy it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marrage. It is a totally different thing.



No, it is fairly relevent when we are debating the legal definition of marriage.  If "man and woman" isn't the only acceptable defintion, what makes "man and man" or "man and women" acceptable or unacceptable?  Is "2" an important factor of defining marriage and if so, why?



> I know they are both religiously wrong but that is as much they share.



Are you sure - it seems that many religions/societies happen to condone polygamy - probably more than those that condone same-sex marriage.  Ask the House of Saud about that.



> I think gays should have the right but the churches should also have the right to preform these ceremonies or not.



That seems to be the general agreement amongst most people - but explain why.



> This argument could go on forever. This topic should be locked before people start taking offence to some remarks (regardless of the side of the debate).



Don't worry, the Staff has their eyes on.  It is okay to discuss and debate the issue - if it goes over the top or gets stuck in a rut, we'll lock it.


----------



## RossF

My 2 cents:

Even though I may not agree with everything some other people do.. If you do your job, you're fine with me.


----------



## andpro

I see what you mean. I guess I should have said it was wrong in the majority of religions in Canada. As for the change in the definition of marriage, if polygamy were as acceptable as homosexuality today then it would probably be considered to be added into the marriage definition. The fact is that its not so it does not have any relevancy to this debate. If gays have the right exercise there beliefs , the church should not be forced to do something against it beliefs. Every one should have the right to their own beliefs.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Just another sign of the continuing depravity and degradation of society and the CF in general.  Other examples are the refusal of the soldier to remove his headcover on Remembrance Day, women in combat roles and the reluctance of the Canadian electorate to rid themselves of the corrupt, immoral Liberal Govt.
> 
> BTW: I could care less what anyones 'sexual preference" is.  Gay marriage is illogical and simply stupid.  It is merely an attempt to add 'normalcy' to something they know is inherently wrong!  I find it very amusing to see how people can come on here and justify anything.  Soon they will be 'marriying' people and animals or some such wiedo thing and guaranteed someone will come on here and find some way to justify it!



I know nothing about the CIC, but now I know one of the reasons why we all hate them. :

EDIT: Well, make that two.


----------



## Fry

About the previous post about showering CO-ED, I think that is 100% true. Homosexuality conflicts with my Christian beliefs bigtime, and I've no time for it at all. Also, I don't like how they taken our definition of marriage, stripped it down, and use it for their own liking. Call it something else, but not marriage. 

Homosexuality is an illness. Viewing men as you would females, and vice versa for the women is wrong. If homosexuality was the right thing to do, the human population would cease to exist. I don't care much for homosexuality and what's involved with it, as long as it's the homosexual people aren't flaming and shoving it down your throat, let em do what they want... but not marriage... and in the CF?


a previous post said "Disgusting". That was most definately the one of the biggest understatements ever mentioned.


----------



## Gunner

Fry said:
			
		

> About the previous post about showering CO-ED, I think that is 100% true. Homosexuality conflicts with my Christian beliefs bigtime, and I've no time for it at all. Also, I don't like how they taken our definition of marriage, stripped it down, and use it for their own liking. Call it something else, but not marriage.
> 
> Homosexuality is an illness. Viewing men as you would females, and vice versa for the women is wrong. If homosexuality was the right thing to do, the human population would cease to exist. I don't care much for homosexuality and what's involved with it, as long as it's the homosexual people aren't flaming and shoving it down your throat, let em do what they want... but not marriage... and in the CF?
> 
> a previous post said "Disgusting". That was most definately the one of the biggest understatements ever mentioned.



What the Christ is going on in cadets with this type of crap being spouted?  From a kid ?  Don't join the CF because we don't need your narrow minded and naive viewpoint.


----------



## Fry

The local Legion branch here has had the 2 minute silence at their Rememberance Day service for as long as I can remember.

As for the homosexuality on the first page, that's all you can expect. So many people to this very day, take for granted the sacrifices made before them. The vets and the dead should be honoured much more than a bunch of gay men. Hell, they're making a mint off homosexuality on TV. Queer eye for the straight guy, queer as folk. If you had Straight Televison as a channel, or Straight as folk or something like that, you'd be hung. It's a sad day when you see homosexuality promoted more than honouring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, don't ya think? 'Nuff said.


----------



## Fry

Dude, all I'm saying, is that I don't appreciate flaming homosexuals, because it's against my beliefs as a christian. My beliefs. If they do not interfere with your beliefs, then that's fine.

I'm not attacking homosexuality, I'm attacking the fact that it's trying to be made part of something it isn't. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

If 2 dudes want to shack up, then they can go for it, I don't really care.. but when they try to adopt parts of Christianity that doesn't apply to them, then I do care.


----------



## Infanteer

Fry said:
			
		

> If you had Straight Televison as a channel, or Straight as folk or something like that, you'd be hung.



Uhh...we call that "every other TV show on the networks", don't we?

Anyways, thanks for rehashing a topic that went stale five years ago.


----------



## R031button

Fry said:
			
		

> Dude, all I'm saying, is that I don't appreciate flaming homosexuals, because it's against my beliefs as a christian. My beliefs. If they do not interfere with your beliefs, then that's fine.
> 
> I'm not attacking homosexuality, I'm attacking the fact that it's trying to be made part of something it isn't. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
> 
> If 2 dudes want to shack up, then they can go for it, I don't really care.. but when they try to adopt parts of Christianity that doesn't apply to them, then I do care.



 See this is where I run into problems here. Marriage has been an institution in human societies for thousands of years. Therefor how can you claim marriage to be an exclusivly Judeo-Christian concept? I mean we can trace it as least as far as the ancient Greeks, and they certainly wouldn't have had a problem with two guys "shaked up"

 Also, they're not trying to steal part of your religion, they're trying to get the same rights you do. I mean if two guys have been in that kind of a relationship for 20 years, why shouldn't they get the same legal rights as a married mand and woman.


----------



## Armymedic

This issue is about two hot button points...

morales and equality, and in particular how the rule of law is given as a guidance for both.

Our country like most in western civilization is guided by Christian based morals and those morals are what guided our forefathers in their drafting of our countries laws (1867 versions). One of those Christian morals hold that a man may join with a woman in a marriage, generally for the purpose of procreation, but also for life long companion ship and varied other reasons. Since homosexuality was a sin, it was out lawed. Obviously since 1867, times and people have changed. Since, a well spoken Prime Minister had a vision of a Canada where gov't had no business in the bedrooms of the nation and the every Canadian was granted all the same rights and privileges as any other regardless of age, religion, language, ethnic background, and yes, even sexual orientation.

That being said...I am a Canadian who holds a absolute disdain for any form of discrimination, and despite having a personal moral view of marrage being a a union between a man and woman, I strongly believe the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy should be enjoyed by every other Canadian citizen who wishes to be "married" to another Canadian citizen. 

I know too many good soldiers, good people to discriminate them from those rights...

Having gays marry does not bother me nearly as much as the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada directs the national morals and related policies, and the Govt drags its feet, afraid of controversy, instead of changing the laws to reflect modern realities.


----------



## Fry

Yes. I am in no way saying gays should be denied any of the rights that I have. I am a Christian for a reason though, because I believe what is involved with this Religion. Gays can marry if they wish, but it just angers me a little when they try to do it through means of Christianity, and not by a judge.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl

R031button said:
			
		

> Also, they're not trying to steal part of your religion, they're trying to get the same rights you do. I mean if two guys have been in that kind of a relationship for 20 years, why shouldn't they get the same legal rights as a married man and woman.



Isn't common law marriage sufficient?   Unless I'm terribly mistaken, common law marriage and "traditional" marriage afford couple the same rights.   I believe many people of the book, meaning Christians, Muslims and Jews, still interpret their holy scriptures as strictly forbidding same sex marriages.


----------



## Armymedic

Fry said:
			
		

> Homosexuality is an illness. Viewing men as you would females, and vice versa for the women is wrong. If homosexuality was the right thing to do, the human population would cease to exist. I don't care much for homosexuality and what's involved with it, as long as it's the homosexual people aren't flaming and shoving it down your throat, let em do what they want... but not marriage... and in the CF?



First, Homosexuality is not an illness...

Second, flaming heterosexuals are just disgusting...always hitting on the opposite sex despite the social norms for them not to do so...

Third, I hope you find pictures of two women having sex with each other just as disgusting as two men having sex.....

Finally, its wrong for anyone in the CF to look at anyone else in the shower in that "way" regardless.

This has become an issue of equality and respect...every Canadian is entitled to all the same rights and any other.

To do anything less is not the way we want our country to be.  

Heres a thought, lets outlaw marriage outright...that way everyone will be equal, cause nobody can be married....


----------



## Infanteer

Fry said:
			
		

> About the previous post about showering CO-ED, I think that is 100% true.



Co-ed showers - do you really think that a shower is a place where a gay man would use the oppurtunity to stare at you or cop a feel?   My, how insecure are you....



> Homosexuality conflicts with my Christian beliefs bigtime, and I've no time for it at all.





> Also, I don't like how they taken our definition of marriage, stripped it down, and use it for their own liking. Call it something else, but not marriage.



As I said above, please define "our" definition of marriage (in the legal sense, as that is what is being discussed).   You must address my issues of love, children, and tradition not being as relevent as some would like.



> Homosexuality is an illness. Viewing men as you would females, and vice versa for the women is wrong.



Wow, I see we've sinking to new levels here - if I was gay, I'd sure be happy you diagnosed me, Dr Goofball. 

I would encourage you to read the research on the issue.   To date, the strongest case appears to be links between genetics and the development and release of certain hormones during development shortly after birth.

Different it is.   An illness it isn't, and it isn't cureable (nor does it require one).

If your going to be an incendiary biggot in these parts, don't expect to be around here for long.



> If homosexuality was the right thing to do, the human population would cease to exist.



Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproduction - we are talking about human behaviour as opposed to biological reproduction.   Greek society, among others, condoned homosexuality among men, albeit in a form that is different from what we would understand, and there civilization diddn't 



> I don't care much for homosexuality and what's involved with it, as long as it's the homosexual people aren't flaming and shoving it down your throat, let em do what they want... but not marriage... and in the CF?



...and that's your right as a Canadian.   I hope you also understand that we don't have to put up with postulating based upon your interpretations of Christian values and shoving it down our throats.



> a previous post said "Disgusting". That was most definately the one of the biggest understatements ever mentioned.



The same can be said about your behaviour right now.



			
				Fry said:
			
		

> Dude, all I'm saying, is that I don't appreciate flaming homosexuals, because it's against my beliefs as a christian. My beliefs. If they do not interfere with your beliefs, then that's fine.



I thought God loved all of his Children on Earth (maybe Trinity can help me on that one).



> I'm not attacking homosexuality, I'm attacking the fact that it's trying to be made part of something it isn't.



Really, that's what you just did above (which I've quoted for posterity).



> Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.



Prove it - and prove it in a manner that is accepted by most Canadians.



> If 2 dudes want to shack up, then they can go for it, I don't really care.. but when they try to adopt parts of Christianity that doesn't apply to them, then I do care.



Okay, so "adopting parts of Christianity" means that marriage is implicitly Christian - despite what the CF Padre said above.   You are an idiot.

Anyways, thanks to Mr Fry, this thread is rapidly approaching its expiry date.   We can all thank him for ruining a lively discussion.


----------



## qor556

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> Isn't common law marriage sufficient?  Unless I'm terribly mistaken, common law marriage and "traditional" marriage afford couple the same rights.  I believe many people of the book, meaning Christians, Muslims and Jews, still interpret their holy scriptures as strictly forbidding same sex marriages.



I remember something about certain legal, financial implications that limits couples from certain things who are not binded by marriage. Although I am not sure what it specifically is.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Fry I bet a homosexual or lesbian is closer to you then you think.

That being said come to think of it I think all blacks shouldn't be allowed to be married either.   It wasn't that long ago they weren't even considered a whole person census wise.   All marriages of colour including interracial marriages should be null and void.


----------



## Britney Spears

If anyone was wondering, currently same sex marriage, civil or otherwise, is recognized by the gov'ts of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskachewan, Quebec, and BC.



EDIT: Nunavut and Yukon too.


----------



## Fry

Prehaps I just got a bit fired up, and I apologize. No, homosexuality isn't an illness as such, but in a psyc couse I did, it did talk about a certain part of the brain was reported smaller in homosexuals than in straight people.


When things like this arise, strongly conflicting with such holy beliefs, it would make one's blood pressure rise, just a little. If gays didn't involve Christianity at all with their marriage, then I wouldn't care one bit. Hell, a dude can marry a goat for all I care, but not by a minister or priest.

Regarding a previous post, people's race shouldn't be brought into this issue. People can't help it if they're black, white, red, brown, tan, anything. But since I was proven earlier that it isn't an illness, then it has to be choice. There's nothing wrong with choice. There is something wrong when thousands of years of beliefs are thrown down the drain when things like this become involved with Christianity.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Its the inflexible nature such as Fry has exhibited made me and many others turn away from the Christian faith. I know a few gays and lesbians and they will tell you that you are full of shyte Fry. Being gay is not a choice, its something that they are predisposed to. K did not wake up one moring and decide she liked women, she always knew she liked women. Hello??? Please engage your brain. You are a bigot plain and simple. Too bad for someone so young.


----------



## Armymedic

Fry said:
			
		

> Prehaps I just got a bit fired up, and I apologize. No, homosexuality isn't an illness as such, but in a psyc couse I did, it did talk about a certain part of the brain was reported smaller in homosexuals than in straight people.



Yes and 100 yrs ago, Homosexuality was an illnes that required treatment, and Negroes had smaller brains then White people.....

Time change. So do people and attitudes...

And its only the media that dredges it up over and over again.

Lets go back to the beginning...

*Two military members of the same sex got married to each other last month....*

SO WHAT? Thousands of other people got married last month too.

Good for them, I hope they are happy....

Now lets lock this crap up.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Fry said:
			
		

> Prehaps I just got a bit fired up, and I apologize. No, homosexuality isn't an illness as such, but in a psyc couse I did, it did talk about a certain part of the brain was reported smaller in homosexuals than in straight people.



And your point is? The study reference is? The study's conclusions were?



			
				Fry said:
			
		

> When things like this arise, strongly conflicting with such holy beliefs, it would make one's blood pressure rise, just a little. If gays didn't involve Christianity at all with their marriage, then I wouldn't care one bit. heck, a dude can marry a goat for all I care, but not by a minister or priest.



And with various Christian denominations changing their views on this, we should accept your lone opinion because? Please feel free to speak for yourself, rather than to allude to representing Christianity as a whole. To some, your narrow-minded views might actually be considered unChristian. Please explian how you reconcile this paradox and still claim to uphold such a strong and pure sense of Christian ideals.



			
				Fry said:
			
		

> Regarding a previous post, people's race shouldn't be brought into this issue. People can't help it if they're black, white, red, brown, tan, anything. But since I was proven earlier that it isn't an illness, then it has to be choice. There's nothing wrong with choice. There is something wrong when thousands of years of beliefs are thrown down the drain when things like this become involved with Christianity.



I believe Infanteer's comments referred to genetic and developmental factors. Please investigate the suggested lines of research before making such statements. Are you speaking just for yourself, or do you presume to represent all 2 billion (+) reported practitioners of Christian faiths? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm)


----------



## Infanteer

I need to get one more word in.

Fry, don't call Gunner "Dude" - he's not your homeboy and you can show a little respect around here.

Secondly, 



			
				Fry said:
			
		

> But since I was proven earlier that it isn't an illness, then it has to be choice. There's nothing wrong with choice.



As an acquaintance of mine who worked as a youth counsellor said, "I've seen too many kids hang themselves to believe that being gay is a choice".

Think about that, reflect upon why you received your Verbal Warning, and tread lightly.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html


----------



## FascistLibertarian

shared with the usualy disclaimers

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/10/gaybashing_canadians_face_jail.php

Gay-bashing Canadians face jail terms
Tuesday 02 October 2007

The public prosecution department has asked the courts to jail a 22-year-old Canadian soldier for eight months for beating up a homosexual man in Amsterdam this spring. A second soldier, also 22, faces a six-week sentence. The attack sent out alarm signals about increasing violence against gay people. 


has anyone heard anything else about this?
Can they be charged under our laws at all?
I have not read anything about this in any Canadian newspapers





_* Title edited to better reflect what is currently (not) known*_


----------



## Sig_Des

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Can they be charged under our laws at all?



Depends on their status. Are they Reg F or Res F members? Are they currently under the Code of Service Discipline? If so there's a couple of service offences that they could see themselves facing. 129, prejudicing good order and discipline, or 93. cruel or disgraceful conduct are the two that come to mind for me.

If jailed, they could see themselves as an administrative burden, and be released from the CF. They could face disciplinary action under the CF.

But before we jump the gun, is this just a couple of guys who got drunk and got into a fight, with someone who happened to be a homosexual? Nothing in the article says they specifically targetted someone based on their sexual preference. This article is very sparse, and I wouldn't come to any conclusions based on so little.


----------



## 1feral1

Come on FL, stirring the pot again I see.

Gays get bashed, straights get bashed, people in general get assaulted for all sorts of reasons, usually booze induced.

Some gays guys are big hairy assed monsters, not the stereotyped limp wristed fems. There is two sides to every story, why not post a link to the other side of the story, instead of promoting army beats up gays!

Amsterdam is full of alternate freaks at the best of times.

That article is pretty much 'limp wristed' - doesn't say much at all.


Wes


----------



## Sig_Des

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> There is two sides to every story, why not post a link to the other side of the story, instead of promoting army beats up gays!
> 
> Amsterdam is full of alternate freaks at the best of times.



agreed Wes. There's a proportion here. If I got into a fight in Paris, there very well could be headlines that say "Canadian Soldier bashes French Man"


----------



## FascistLibertarian

your right wes, all i want to do is convience everyone that the cf is 100% homophobic gay bashers. Im just a troll in search of attention, i dont at all think this is a serious story which deserves a thread here.:
i didnt post anything else bc i have not been able to find anything else besides this one story from the dutch media.
and while I agree people get beat up and bashed over stuff all the time the issue i would majorly have is if the guy was beaten up *because* he was gay.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Folks, keep the discussion in line with the original post, and the tempers under control.



			
				FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> has anyone heard anything else about this?
> Can they be charged under our laws at all?
> I have not read anything about this in any Canadian newspapers


----------



## 1feral1

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> your right wes, all i want to do is convience everyone that the cf is 100% homophobic gay bashers. Im just a troll in search of attention, i dont at all think this is a serious story which deserves a thread here.:



There is nothing to suggest he was attacked because of his sexual preference, e.g. - a hate related crime.

I bet we would not have seen this posted if the word 'gay' was not used.

No tempers flaring, just also going by the diet content of your previous posts.


Wes


----------



## The Bread Guy

Strange - I can't find anything else, either, even on the EC's media monitoring web page.

Methinks that if there was a realistic suggestion that this may have been a hate crime (assault because of gay, rather than assault on someone who we found out later was gay), esp. based on a recommendation by the Dutch prosecution service, Radio Netherlands or other major outlets would have written/broadcast something in English.

Then again, I don't know about NLD media cycles, so who knows if more will come out in later news cycles on other media?


----------



## mckee19

for all we know the gay man could have said something very rude about our current involvement in Afghanistan and deserved a punch in the face........or maybe the gay man came on to the soldier in a way that warrented a beating.

for all we know this could be as much the gay mans fault as the soldiers....I'm going to put money on the fact that the soldier didn't walk up to the man ask if he was gay, got an answer and just started beating him up.

this is just another way the media can tare the names of many good men by posting such garbage.....the storey is one paragraph and only states that a GAY man was beat up because he was gay by a soldier. just because the man was gay does not mean that was the reason for the beating......like i stated earlier, maybe the fight was provoked by the gay man only for the soldier to find out afterwards the man was gay, now the gay man has a crutch to rely on and hide behind his sexuality.

just for the record i dont have a problem with gays, as long as they keep it to themselves. I am just stating very reasonable possibilities


----------



## Shamrock

mckee19 said:
			
		

> ...or maybe the gay man came on to the soldier in a way that warrented a beating.



An example being?


----------



## eerickso

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Depends on their status. Are they Reg F or Res F members? Are they currently under the Code of Service Discipline? If so there's a couple of service offences that they could see themselves facing. 129, prejudicing good order and discipline, or 93. cruel or disgraceful conduct are the two that come to mind for me.



You can be sentenced for much more serious offences than these. Assault being one of them.


----------



## mckee19

Shamrock said:
			
		

> An example being?



i cant give you any personal examples, but i think we could all figure it out?

too some maybe a sexual advance would not justify a beating, but with alcohol in your system and something serious enough might cause it....maybe it was not the best example but who knows it MIGHT be the case.........just a speculation, kind of like this article being a speculation that the man was beat up just because of his sexual preference. i was just throwing out a half assed theory because i believe this article is doing the same. it has no merit, like i said its a paragraph long and people already believe it.


----------



## medaid

How is this ladies and gents, regardless of who the Canadians may be, servicemen or otherwise, no matter if the victim was of what ever sexual orientation, the fact is assault is assault. There is no excuse for assault here in Canada or in a foreign country. If it was self-deence then it will be different, however, until more info arrises we should stop speculating. This thread could go down really quickly. Maybe it's a better idea if we lock this one up?


----------



## Shamrock

mckee19 said:
			
		

> too some maybe a sexual advance would not justify a beating, but with alcohol in your system and something serious enough might cause it...



Alcohol as a defence?


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the wrap-up, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Dutch court convicts Canadian soldiers of assault, clears them of gay bashing*
Canadian Press, 16 Oct 07
Article link

A Dutch court ordered two Canadian soldiers jailed Tuesday for assaulting a homosexual man in Amsterdam, but cleared them of charges of targeting the victim because of his sexual orientation.

The Amsterdam District Court sentenced Eric Wright to five months and Ryan Dowie to 45 days for their roles in the May attack, which was highly publicized in the Dutch news media because it was perceived to be part of an increase of "gay bashing" hate crimes.

The court said prosecutors proved the men, both aged 22, "openly and in unison used violence against the victim and his boyfriend," including stomping on the victim's face so that he suffered a skull fracture and broken nose.

However "the court sees no reason to doubt the declaration of the suspects that they didn't even know the victim and his friends were homosexual until they were informed of this by the police after the incident."

The men said they had called the 28-year-old victim "gay" and "a fag" because he wore military-style "dog tag" identification but wasn't a soldier.

The Canadians were stationed in the Netherlands ahead of a deployment to the country's NATO force in Afghanistan.


----------



## mckee19

now what happens? 

kicked out of the forces or does a conviction in another country count?


----------



## PMedMoe

How's buddy going to serve 5 months when he's supposed to be going on tour?

I know people use the term "gay" meaning stupid or whatever, but fag?  Never heard that one. 
It sounds like they were lying through their teeth to save their a**es, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## mckee19

Ive heard it plenty, i know I'm guilty of using it with my friends and what not.
as in being a fag is an insult......don't get me wrong probably not the best thing to be saying, but we have become very desensitised to the word


----------



## Sub_Guy

I use the term gay quite often, usually to describe something stupid.   "Man that dukes of hazzard lunch box is gay"

I don't see a problem with it, and if I worried about offending everyone I probably wouldn't get three words out.  Besides isn't the parade called "Gay Pride Parade"

Or is it strictly the Pride Parade?

I might have to come up with a new word, describe gay stuff.    "Man that dukes of hazzard lunch box is slick"  Nope that doesn't work.....

Anyway I don't know the whole story but the guys got off so hopefully they can get back to their lives in peace and quiet.


----------



## PMedMoe

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> but the guys got off so hopefully they can get back to their lives in peace and quiet.



Well, they didn't exactly "get off" but it does seem like a pretty lenient sentence for what they did (stomping on the victim's face so that he suffered a skull fracture and broken nose).  I somehow doubt their lives were "peace and quiet" to begin with if they are capable of such an act.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Highlights mine - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Soldiers ready to march with Pride parade*
Canadian Forces allowed, for first time, to participate openly
Sarah Barmak, Toronto Star, 27 Jun 08
Article link

Call it the opposite of "Don't ask, don't tell."

The Canadian Forces will be on the march Sunday, but on a different kind of mission. For the first time, men and women in uniform from across the country will represent the military in Toronto's Pride parade.

"This will send out a national message that the Canadian Forces is an employer of choice for all people," Lieut. Stephen Churm said yesterday. The naval officer will be among 17 military personnel walking and interacting with the crowd.

"We're not going to be in full uniform," he said. "We'll wear short sleeves because of the weather."

The soldiers will march alongside firefighters, police and people representing Toronto Crime Stoppers, the latter who are also marching at Pride for the first time.

A diversity officer with the Hamilton recruitment centre, Churm has been openly gay at work since 2001. In 2004, he led the charge to create a military presence in Hamilton's annual Pride festival, and began with four soldiers at an information booth. Last year, he and a small group of soldiers marched in the parade for the first time.

He wanted to correct a perception in the gay community that the Canadian military "had a policy of `Don't ask, don't tell.'"

*Churm said Hamilton Pride officials consulted neither that community nor the military before making a "political decision" to ban the military from this year's parade.

Hamilton Pride organizers imposed the ban because of a complaint from a recent immigrant who feared the military because of persecution by soldiers in their own country. They also allege the Canadian Forces is responsible for worldwide human rights abuses.

Churm said that while the Canadian Forces respects Hamilton Pride officials' right to decide who is a part of the parade, "we would have liked to the opportunity to discuss it with organizers.*

"The irony here is we had no intention of attending because we were concentrating on Toronto," which has a higher profile, he said.

It won't be Churm's first Toronto Pride. He attended in 1999, when he kept his sexual orientation a secret from the military. He says he might have come out sooner had he seen something as powerful as a military presence at Pride.

The Canadian Forces are "shifting gears" to a more welcoming attitude toward gay, lesbian and transgendered soldiers, Churm said, adding he has never felt discriminated against – although he has had to "educate people" at times.

"I hope it will encourage others to take the initiative and attend events elsewhere."


----------



## CountDC

which worldwide human rights abuses are we responsible for??? Recent immigrant complaint because of fear from their own military??

Perhaps the organizers should remember what the PRIDE parade is about and who is defending their rights to have it.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

One person's complaint managed to keep the CF out.. interesting.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CountDC said:
			
		

> Perhaps the organizers should remember what the PRIDE parade is about and who is defending their rights to have it.



Or even just remember what the tolerance they call for REALLY means.....


----------



## 2 Cdo

Seems to be much ado about nothing. I find that the vast majority of organizations like PRIDE (or any other leftie groups) only tolerate those that have the same opinion of them. Apparently for them tolerance is a one-way street. :


----------



## Sheerin

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Seems to be much ado about nothing. I find that the vast majority of organizations like PRIDE (or any other leftie groups) only tolerate those that have the same opinion of them. Apparently for them tolerance is a one-way street. :



And _rightie _ groups known for their inclusiveness?


----------



## North Star

Lol..the more liberarian groups tend to be pretty inclusive - everyone agrees on the one idea that government shouldn't interfere in personal lives!

From my time in student politics at UofT I find in general gay rights groups, with a few exceptions (like the one waging a legal "war" on the Catholic Church), tend to be pretty sensible compared to other interest groups. Other interest groups, especially those whose causes are on the decline, tend to be way more wing-nutty in order to try and grab attention and a sense of purpose. 

The actions of the Hamilton group is bad, but hey, Toronto (and the CF's) gain.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I hear that the right marker will be FAB-U-LOUS!!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I hear that the right marker will be FAB-U-LOUS!!!!



We're not going to be going down the "Village People" road here, are we?   

Comfort or discomfort with the concept, it DOES market the CF to a lot of people in the case of the TO parade, so as long as the troops look and act respectable in uniform (which I have no doubt they will), it could be a good thing.


----------



## vonGarvin

If I were to attend a political event in my uniform, I don't think I'd be allowed, let alone to make a speach.  Now, is this the same thing?  I'm not sure.  Having pride in one's sexual preference is a bit of an odd thing for me to comprehend (much as pride in one's race, religion, or whatever, but hey, live and let live, I suppose), but if they want to show off that they are proud of being both homosexual and members of the CF, whatever.  Now, as for a "recent immigrant" worried about CF members, then I think that the "recent immigrant" should perhaps STFU if he/she doesn't like it in THIS country, and perhaps go home and have a pride parade there.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Sheerin said:
			
		

> And _rightie _ groups known for their inclusiveness?



Well when Yellowknife wanted to have a "straight day", it got canceled because some thought it promoted hate.  The one-way street.

It is nice to see that the military is included in the pride parade, shame on the Hamilton organizers though, all they had to do was tell the immigrant to get educated on his NEW country and shut the door when you leave.


----------



## George Wallace

How long will it take the Government to finally recognize the fact that WASP Straight Men are a minority?


----------



## Armymedic

As a heterosexual, married with kids, white, English only man, I feel offended that the Hamilton Pride parade feels the CF (or at lest the gay persons in it) are not worthy of their little swarie.
Is there a Human Rights Commission I could complain to?


----------



## Grando

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Well when Yellowknife wanted to have a "straight day", it got canceled because some thought it promoted hate.  The one-way street.



This is the worst logic to address an issue.

Did they keep the Canadian Forces out of the Hamilton parade solely because of one man? Of course not...Occam's Razor and logical deduction would imply that it has more to do with right wing/left wing political differences than some random guy.

A similar situation came up when my girlfriend at the time attended a "Take Back the Night" ceremony where females marched around 'taking back the night' from sexual predators, etc.  I was not allowed to attend because I was a male.  I can understand why, but it made little sense to me.


----------



## observor 69

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long will it take the Government to finally recognize the fact that WASP Straight Men are a minority?



Soon to be a statistical fact in the GTA.


----------



## kratz

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How long will it take the Government to finally recognize the fact that WASP Straight Men are a minority?



Such a question has been asked before. But it is not PC to ask in most places, therefore there is no political will to recognize the new minority.


----------



## PuckChaser

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Highlights mine - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._
> 
> *Soldiers ready to march with Pride parade*
> Canadian Forces allowed, for first time, to participate openly
> Sarah Barmak, Toronto Star, 27 Jun 08
> Article link
> 
> "We're not going to be in full uniform," he said. "We'll wear short sleeves because of the weather."
> 
> The soldiers will march alongside firefighters, police and people representing Toronto Crime Stoppers, the latter who are also marching at Pride for the first time.



I was under the impression CF members were allowed to march in pride parades, however they were not to wear any uniform, but if asked could identify themselves as a member of the CF. Not at work so I can't pull the CANFORGEN I saw on it...


----------



## Sythen

> This is the worst logic to address an issue....



How so? Wonder what would happen if any group didn't let the gay community march in its parade because some random dude was bum raped back in his home country? Sorry, its a double standard and I'm personally starting to get really annoyed with it..


----------



## RCDtpr

This is the nonsense that is what's hurting Canada.  We buckle to complaints too easily.  This person is a recent immigrant who came here, doesn't like the way we do things in OUR country so they demand we conform to them.  We need to start telling immigrants that they must conform to the general way of life in Canada or don't come.

And secondly can they really stop the CF from coming? If CF members showed up in the crowd in uniform handing out flyers or whatnot would they have grounds to stop us?  It's a public street.  Probably a touchy subject that I wouldn't think the cops would want to get involved with if they didn't have to.


----------



## Bob Terwilliger

Its a good thing. Army guys not welcome at a freakish parade of tranvestites? How many of you were planning on going anyway?


----------



## Strike

Ah, gee Bob, I have quite a few gay friends, some of whome are serving.  If they asked me to come to the parade and march with them I would be more than honoured to do so.


----------



## Grando

Sythen said:
			
		

> How so? Wonder what would happen if any group didn't let the gay community march in its parade because some random dude was bum raped back in his home country? Sorry, its a double standard and I'm personally starting to get really annoyed with it..



It's not a double standard because people do things like "we should have a white parade" or "fuck that we should be able to have a straight parade" out of spite.  If those groups were oppressed then you'd have a case.

I'll agree about political correctness and that some sort of a double standard exists, but using analogies like a 'straight parade' makes your argument look foolish, that's all.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander

When I think of the canadian forces and some civy organizations I shouldnt have to think of Rodney Dangerfield saying "I get no respect, I gets no respect" as well


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I remember being in Montreal and stumbling upon ‘Diversity’.  They had a CF recruiting booth there set up.  I remember my American friends making … well I’ll say off colour comments on not just the people the CF would attract, but started digging in to how the Canadian military would get excluded from NATO missions because no one would want to go to war with us, because we’d slap and pinch….

Sometimes it is hard not to use “percussive” therapy when explaining basic things; but I tried.   American army has gays… the fact they need to hide it or risk losing their job is not just unfair it could be an extreme weakness… blah blah blah

Now as for straight pride parades… good idea.  Let me know when your straight friend got beaten up – hospitalized- and kicked out of his home by his father because he was unable to hide he was straight. (As happened to my friend and former coworker)  

When you have to have to reject negative stereotypes and overcome the unjust shame placed on you. When you’re forced to discover yourself worth,  in the face of people telling you that you’re inferior, worthless, diseased and disgusting… then you get a parade.

Now,  I think the CF should march in the parade … big water guns…  I’d love to see a perfectly executed section attack.  (I’m thinking of how political parties are there and certain politicians …

Look at the attached picture and say to yourself “Charlie team,  take a bound”...   (I'm just having fun  )


----------



## Armymedic

Exactly.
We (the CF "We") are supposed to be all good that Canadians see themselves (other than killing scumbags, but hey, who's perfect?). We are supposed to be tolerant of our fellow Canadians. We are supposed to respect our fellow soldiers and base our opinion of them on thier job performance, not thier colour, gender, religion, how they dress when not in uniform, or whom they sleep with at night.

Money is supposed to be where the mouth is...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I think the rainbow LAV was a serious question, not a sarcastic comment.  Once parades like this get more and more publicity and people put in the proper requests it wouldn't be too far fetched to see a LAV on such a parade.  Not painted, but colourfully adorned.

If you don't ask, you don't get.. 

So the troops'll be in DEU 3Bs from what I am guessing?  That's good cause they can wear their earned ribbons and awards and show that we in the CF don't discriminate.  It's great to see the normalcy finally coming to the country.. bit by bit.. when people can just realize we are all the same despite colour, sex, income, etc... then we can concentrate on important things, like wiping out poverty, etc.  I am glad we are such a tolerant country.

Happy Canada day!!!


----------



## ghyslyn

Zell_Dietrich I'll have to strongly disagree with you, I gotta say people shouldn't be oppressed in order to have the right to parading pride, people should be allowed to parade about whatever they want, sure some subjects could spark controversial comments, but it's the risk the organisers know they take by having the event take place.

I've seen alot of strange events about strange things, why shouldn't we have "normal" events about "normal" things?


----------



## RiverDriver

Ghyslyn, we do: Canada Day parades, Christmas parades, Remembrance Day parades, and many other local events such as the Apple Blossom parade where I'm from. All which you would probably consider 'normal.'


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm mystified why ones sexual proclivities are grounds for a public display of any kind.  Yes, I know, persecution, abuse, yadda yadda yadda.  Don't get me wrong, be as gay/bi/trans as you want, it's a big planet with lots of room for everyone. Is there really a need to be in everyones face about it?


----------



## vonGarvin

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm mystified why ones sexual proclivities are grounds for a public display of any kind.  Yes, I know, persecution, abuse, yadda yadda yadda.  Don't get me wrong, be as gay/bi/trans as you want, it's a big planet with lots of room for everyone. Is there really a need to be in everyones face about it?


I think you've said more eloquently what I feel than how I could have said it (if that makes any sense).  EVERY group out there has been oppressed, "beat up by dad" or whatever.  As one example, a friend of mine was talking with me a few weeks ago about an eye opening (to him) documentary on television a while back.  The focus of the show was how Roman Catholics are probably the most maligned group in current popular culture these days (you know the jokes: pedophile priests, misogynistic system, oppressive culture, repressive, murderous even in that they preach against contraceptives, etc and so forth).  Homosexuals aren't the only group to be kicked around, so that argument doesn't hold water with me.  But, in the spirit of live and let live, if one is "allowed" (politically) to be proud of one's sexual orientation, then abandon the exclusive "gay" pride parade and instead have a "love" parade as they do in Berlin every year.  Instead of being "us" vs "them" (as a gay pride parade is perceived by some), have an inclusive parade celebrating humankind's ability to love itself.
"Straight Pride" is as odd a concept as "Gay pride". Me, I'd much rather be proud of my accomplishments than my preference.  But that's just me.


----------



## Strike

Kat and MR,  here's hoping the "so what" attitude that you guys have will catch on a little bit more.  I once saw a poster of various men working in construction.  The caption on top said, "Which one of these men is gay?"  The bottom said, "Who cares?"


----------



## vonGarvin

Strike said:
			
		

> Kat and MR,  here's hoping the "so what" attitude that you guys have will catch on a little bit more.  I once saw a poster of various men working in construction.  The caption on top said, "Which one of these men is gay?"  The bottom said, "Who cares?"


I hope it does too.  Being gay or straight to me is irrelevant (as long as the chick I'm picking up is at least bi!) ;D


----------



## Loachman

As an oppressed gun owner, I yearn for the day when we can have a Gun Pride Parade in Toronto.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Strike said:
			
		

> Kat and MR,  here's hoping the "so what" attitude that you guys have will catch on a little bit more.  I once saw a poster of various men working in construction.  The caption on top said, "Which one of these men is gay?"  The bottom said, "Who cares?"



Not so much "so what" as "none of my friggin' business".  I don't care if your predilection is to shag a snake, as long as the snake is okay with it, but I don't need to see a parade celebrating the fact.


----------



## observor 69

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm mystified why ones sexual proclivities are grounds for a public display of any kind.  Yes, I know, persecution, abuse, yadda yadda yadda.  Don't get me wrong, be as gay/bi/trans as you want, it's a big planet with lots of room for everyone. Is there really a need to be in everyones face about it?



 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080626.wcowent26/BNStory/specialComment/?query=

Pride's just busting out all over
MARGARET WENTE 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

E-mail Margaret Wente | Read Bio | Latest Columns 
June 26, 2008 at 7:58 AM EDT

Yes, folks, it's that time of year again. Time to get out the feathers and the leathers and the nipple rings, and celebrate the wonderful diversity that is Pride Day. Time, if you are a politician, to parade your liberal bona fides and court the gay vote, which, in Toronto, is not inconsiderable, to say nothing of the incredible bonanza that Pride Day means for tourism. Time, if you hate crowds, to get the heck out of the city until they all go home.

"Why don't they call it the Gay Pride Parade any more?" my husband asked.

"Because 'gay' is not inclusive," I said. "Now it's GLBT." 

Actually, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender does not begin to cover it. All these groups are divided into subgroups, each of which has its own pride, identity, support groups and discrimination issues. There are male-to-female transsexuals who have breasts and complain about being rejected by feminists because they're too feminine. There are transmen (female-to-male transsexuals) who complain they're barred from all-male S&M clubs. There are transmen who have surgically constructed male parts (known as "dangly bits") and those who don't. There are transmen who prefer sex with men, ones who prefer sex with women and, for all I know, ones who prefer sex with budgies.

Now there's even a pregnant man - Thomas Beatie, whose due date is next week. "How does it feel to be a pregnant man?" he wrote. "Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man I am."

Before becoming pregnant, Mr. Beatie was a teenage beauty queen. Since then, he had gender-reassignment surgery, legally changed his sex, and got married to a woman. Today, he wears checked shirts and a beard, and wields a chainsaw. When he appeared on Oprah, she patted his protruding belly and called this development "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody."

I like to think I'm reasonably open-minded. But the new normal is always a step or six ahead of me. Just when I think I've caught up to it, my husband picks up a copy of Now Magazine and reads me Dan Savage's column. It is not to be missed. Mr. Savage gives sex advice to people who are engaged in practices I never could have dreamed of. Take, for example, the little old lady who likes to masturbate her budgie to orgasm. "Is this perverted?" a reader asked. Mr. Savage answered no - on the grounds that both parties enjoyed it, and they weren't hurting anyone else.

Well, far be it from me to deny the polymorphous perversity (oops, diversity) of human and avian sexual behaviour. As somebody once said, "I don't care what people do, so long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses."

But a funny thing has happened. Now that merely being gay is normal, people who want to be transgressive have to fight harder and harder for attention. Now that two men kissing is a yawn, it takes a lot to épater la bourgeoisie. You get the feeling that some people want to have it both ways. They want to shock - and they also want society to accept the outer edges of sexual behaviour (as seen on the Queertransmen website) as if they were family picnics in the park.

In an age of limitless individualism, nothing is out of bounds any more. Everybody feels that he or she has an equal right to self-expression, no matter how bizarre. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But what's wrong with restraint? Does everyone have to go on Oprah?

Many (actually, most) of my gay friends think it's all become a bit nuts. They're not transgressive - they're bourgeois. They're weary of the Pride Parade's tired clichés - the campy drag queens, the naughty costumes, the celebration of sex, sex, sex. Yes, it mattered once. But now it just seems faintly vulgar. They're going to spend the weekend gardening.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think a bunch of us from army.ca should don our army.ca t-shirts and show up at the parade in Ham. anyways.

Never top recruiting!

"Hey, maaaaaan, that's cool that your gay and okay with who you are! You know who ELSE is cool with you being gay? THE ARMY!"


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> Now, as for a "recent immigrant" worried about CF members, then I think that the "recent immigrant" should perhaps STFU if he/she doesn't like it in THIS country, and perhaps go home and have a pride parade there




You took the words right out of my mouth. I don't think it would be much of a parade, but more along the lines of a firing squad.

 We tolerate almost every imaginable group here in Canada, but for people who feel the need to abuse our tolerance, spewing garbage that we voilated their rights, I think its high time they reevaluated the reason they came to this country in the first place. Speaking for myself, my tolerance will only go so far for those "recent immigrants" who think we owe them something.

As for the people who are proud of there sexual affiliation, and who can freely peacefully demonstrate that right. hey the more power to ya, because that's what makes Canada a great country.


----------



## vonGarvin

Ok, let's get one thing straight.  The government, a surgery, NOTHING can change your gender from man to woman.  (though there are some cases, I know, where traits of both male and female exist in one person) A man is NOT pregnant as the article claims.  If someone changes their appendages from male to female, and lives as though they were of the opposite sex, well, that's fine.  "She" is pregnant, "he" is not (even if she wants to be called he, that's fine too, but I'm pretty certain that her DNA is still female, and her uterus appears to be functioning in the manner in which it was intended).  Be gay, be straight, be whatever, I couldn't care less.  I don't know why, but "he" is not a "she", or vice versa, or whatever.  And stop making a big deal of it.  I don't identify myself by my sexual preference.  Why should I?  Just as the closing line in that coming out song on "Brain Candy": WHO CARES?
Now, I do have some issue with the public display of pornography that can be found at Pride Parades.  What does simulated fellatio and other sex acts (all while dressed in a G-string, by the way) have to do with pride?  To me it seems more like "Exhibitionist Pride".  
The local Pride chapter in Saint John had a float in a Christmas Parade a few years ago.  No G Strings, just people out celebrating Christmas, handing out candy canes (they may have been rainbow, I can't remember, we got lots of treats that year).  Also saying in public "We're gay" without pushing limits.  Just being proud.  
Anyway, these are my thoughts on things.  And I must also say "SHAME" to Hamilton for refusing to allow CF members to join in on their parade.  I agree with the above poster: show up anyway and wear PT strip (or whatever) that says ARMY (or NAVY or AIR FORCE) and smile and wave at the crowd.  I think that it would crush many misconceptions about the army being non-inclusive.


----------



## vonGarvin

RiverDriver said:
			
		

> Ghyslyn, we do: Canada Day parades, Christmas parades, Remembrance Day parades, and many other local events such as the Apple Blossom parade where I'm from. All which you would probably consider 'normal.'


None of those parades focus on sexual orientation.  Other than Christmas, the others are all inclusive (Christmas used to be a christian holiday: i'm not sure what it is anymore).  I think the point is this: if being proud of sexual orientation is acceptable, then it must be for all sexual orientations, not just homosexuality.  If "Bob" can be proud of being gay, then why can't "Jane" be proud of being straight?


----------



## RiverDriver

Mortarman: point of clarification: I was trying to prove to Ghyslyn was that we do, in fact, (in his/her words) have "..."normal" events about "normal" things..." 

I agree with you in your above statements. I just thought I would clarify.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting coverage by CBC Radio - they did a story on the Ontario news this morning, and mentioned that the first uniformed presence @ a gay pride parade was in Hamilton some years ago.  What the story neglects to mention, though, is that Hamilton didn't WANT a CF presence this  year - "fair and balanced', indeed.

Also, shared with the usual disclaimer, is an earlier story from the Hamilton Spectator, giving a bit more detail on the ban (as well as the ban's alleged "temporary" nature) - highlights mine...

*Did confusion lead Pride to ban Forces?*
Paul Morse, Hamilton Spectator, 18 Jun 08
Article link - .pdf permalink

Hamilton's Pride Festival says* it banned the Canadian military this year because of its human rights violations around the world, including the native standoff in Caledonia.*

*Festival organizers were taken aback yesterday, though, to learn the standoff involved the Ontario Provincial Police, not the Canadian Forces.*

*"It was in terms of the (native) land claims and all that jazz that happened two years ago when military forces did come in and remove people from that land during the Caledonia standoff,"* said Emily Groom, co-chair of the Hamilton Pride Festival Inc., in a phone interview yesterday afternoon.

*When it was pointed out Canadian soldiers were not at Caledonia, Groom said: "(Hamilton) Pride has every right not to affiliate with any institutions that perhaps are based on human rights concerns." Those include perceived violations in Afghanistan and Haiti, she said.*

The decision has ignited a furious backlash within the gay community, with claims that it is contrary to gains since the military overturned its discriminatory policies against homosexuality in 1992.

*"This is completely hypocritical," said David Towler, a human resources consultant who is gay. "The whole situation is just ridiculous."*

The Canadian military has participated in the Hamilton festival for several years, marching in the parade and setting up recruiting booths.

*Organizers say they banned the military from this year's festival, which ran June 6 to 15, because of a complaint from a new Canadian who feared the military because of previous persecution by soldiers.* The decision was made at a private board meeting two months ago, Groom said.

*"It was a temporary decision and only for this year until we can speak further with the community and with the military," said festival co-chair Joe Whelan.*

A Department of National Defence spokesperson yesterday said DND was not able to comment at this time.

_pmorse@thespec.com_



1)  Nice to speak to the CF _*AFTER*_ they're barred from an event, instead of before.

2)  The same person who says she didn't even know the CF isn't at Caledonia is in a position to talk about "perceived violations in Afghanistan and Haiti"?  Good credibility that...  :


----------



## 2 Cdo

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Interesting coverage by CBC Radio - they did a story on the Ontario news this morning, and mentioned that the first uniformed presence @ a gay pride parade was in Hamilton some years ago.  What the story neglects to mention, though, is that Hamilton didn't WANT a CF presence this  year - "fair and balanced', indeed.
> 
> Also, shared with the usual disclaimer, is an earlier story from the Hamilton Spectator, giving a bit more detail on the ban (as well as the ban's alleged "temporary" nature) - highlights mine...
> 
> *Did confusion lead Pride to ban Forces?*
> Paul Morse, Hamilton Spectator, 18 Jun 08
> Article link - .pdf permalink
> 
> Hamilton's Pride Festival says* it banned the Canadian military this year because of its human rights violations around the world, including the native standoff in Caledonia.*
> 
> *Festival organizers were taken aback yesterday, though, to learn the standoff involved the Ontario Provincial Police, not the Canadian Forces.*
> 
> *"It was in terms of the (native) land claims and all that jazz that happened two years ago when military forces did come in and remove people from that land during the Caledonia standoff,"* said Emily Groom, co-chair of the Hamilton Pride Festival Inc., in a phone interview yesterday afternoon.
> 
> *When it was pointed out Canadian soldiers were not at Caledonia, Groom said: "(Hamilton) Pride has every right not to affiliate with any institutions that perhaps are based on human rights concerns." Those include perceived violations in Afghanistan and Haiti, she said.*
> 
> The decision has ignited a furious backlash within the gay community, with claims that it is contrary to gains since the military overturned its discriminatory policies against homosexuality in 1992.
> 
> *"This is completely hypocritical," said David Towler, a human resources consultant who is gay. "The whole situation is just ridiculous."*
> 
> The Canadian military has participated in the Hamilton festival for several years, marching in the parade and setting up recruiting booths.
> 
> *Organizers say they banned the military from this year's festival, which ran June 6 to 15, because of a complaint from a new Canadian who feared the military because of previous persecution by soldiers.* The decision was made at a private board meeting two months ago, Groom said.
> 
> *"It was a temporary decision and only for this year until we can speak further with the community and with the military," said festival co-chair Joe Whelan.*
> 
> A Department of National Defence spokesperson yesterday said DND was not able to comment at this time.
> 
> _pmorse@thespec.com_
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Nice to speak to the CF _*AFTER*_ they're barred from an event, instead of before.
> 
> 2)  The same person who says she didn't even know the CF isn't at Caledonia is in a position to talk about "perceived violations in Afghanistan and Haiti"?  Good credibility that...  :



Thanks Tony for posting an article that supports my earlier post about one-way tolerance.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Wow, as I stated earlier ONE person managed to keep us out.. 

I can see it now:
"soldiers scare me!!"
"Well then, lets ban them all from our parade of acceptance!!"


good thing that immigrant wasn't ever assaulted or persecuted by a fellow gay!!!  

That would've been akward...


----------



## George Wallace

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> good thing that immigrant wasn't ever assaulted or persecuted by a fellow gay!!!
> 
> That would've been akward...



You know that there is a possibility that they may have.  There is no saying what the sexual persuation was of the member(s) of the military from which they were persecuted.  Who knows?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Initial coverage indicates 10 troops in uniform in the parade, with ~1M "attending" the parade - following shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._...

CBC.ca:  "....Lt. Steven Churm, one of 10 soldiers from across the country who marched in uniform, said their presence sends a message that the Canadian military is inclusive and an equal-opportunity employer.  "The message to the public is that the Canadian Forces is an employer of choice. We have employment opportuntities that people can pursue, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation," he told CBC News.  "For our own members, they can be proud of what they're doing and also be proud of who they are."  To mark its place in the festivities, the Canadian Forces set up an information booth in an area of the city where thousands of people gathered for the start of the parade....."

Photo from CBC






Canadian Press:  "For the first time ever, members of the Canadian Armed Forces were among those who danced, shimmied, and strutted their way through downtown Toronto today in the Gay Pride parade.  Warrant Officer John McDougall, who has been an openly gay member of the military for 13 years, says being able to march in the parade in uniform is "groundbreaking."...."

More from Canadian Press:  "Toronto Pride Executive director Fatima Amarshi said that the Armed Forces initiated their participation in the parade.  "We're all familiar with stories of lesbians and gays in the military and the struggle that they've had," she said. "So for the military to turn around and recognize its soldiers, the diversity within its ranks and the need to have a presence at Pride means a tremendous amount."  Earlier this month, the Gay Pride festival in Hamilton, Ont., banned the Canadian military because of alleged human rights violations around the world.  The decision ignited a furious backlash within some in the gay community who claimed that the military has changed since it overturned its discriminatory policies against homosexuality in 1992.  "Different members of our community have all kinds of different opinions on the military, and they will make sure they are heard quite loudly," Amarshi said.  She added that she didn't notice any "substantial" negative reactions to the military personnel in Toronto's parade ...."

_- edited to add photo and latest CP excerpt - _


----------



## FascistLibertarian

It makes me so happy that soldiers are ANGRY that they cant go to the parade in hamilton, I think that alone says tons about how accepting our society is.  ;D
Too bad I missed it for Euro cup, would have been nice to check out some hot soldiers. 

As for the haters, comeon, its harmless fun. So many hetrosexuals act slutty as hell and they never have to answer for the hetrosexual community. And a lot of hetrosexuals are SO proud of their sexual orientation they are ready to fight to prove just how hetro they are.   :



Glad the soldiers were there, now if the CPC would get off its ass Id be in heaven.


----------



## armyvern

To each their own.

To some ... a bit of both.  

Good on them for showing up; greater still that they weren't shy to wear their uniforms.

If people find it (either a military presence in the parade / or the presence of homosexuals in the military) offensive, they are living in yesterday. 

Don't we all have the right to just be happy with our NOK no matter their sex?

Crap, even my son, while in while in middle school debunked the "marriage is for procreation" myth one night while watching the raging debate on TV about the introduction of the Same-Sex Marriage legislation. The "traditionalist" came out with the arguement that "but they can't have children so they shouldn't be allowed to marry. That should be reserved for "families" as God intended." My son's response was "when are they going to make all the married people we know who don't have or want kids get divorced or not be allowed to get married unless they promise to have kids? -- that's stupid."

I was proud of him.

And, just as proud of my daughter who at 13 ... has a girlfriend. Yes, that's right - a girlfriend. She's quite happy (as happy as a 13 year old can be I guess with puppy love IIRC from my own youth). I asked her "are you happy" and she said "yes" - that's what's important to me. It may be a stage - it may not be, but it's what makes her happy right now. I'm good with that and I love her to death - she's a great kid. So is her girlfriend, and they looked awesome together at the Jr prom. Their peers accept them (and so do most adults). The youth of today are certainly more comfortable, aware and accepting of that which was "previously spoken of but not to be seen" - and that, as far as I'm concerned, is a very good thing.

I also think I made my thoughts on the matter quite clear to the school when they called me in the fall to tell me "Ms. X, I thought I should just call to let you know that B was holding hands and showing affection today outside of the school although we don't have a policy against that." Me: "Well why are you calling me then (really, I already knew the answer)?" "Well, because it was with another girl and we just thought that you should know."

My comment was: "Well, I already know that my daughter has a girlfriend and, if it were my son who was holding hands with a girl I wouldn't have gotten this call ... do you see a problem with that? Because I certainly do." Profuse apologies ensued.


----------



## c_canuk

> As for the haters, comeon, its harmless fun. So many hetrosexuals act slutty as hell and they never have to answer for the hetrosexual community. And a lot of hetrosexuals are SO proud of their sexual orientation they are ready to fight to prove just how hetro they are.



never? really... 

I dunno, I'm sure if you had a straight parade (that didn't immediatly get labeled a hate crime), and featured an BSDM float, people would be in jail. 

The two strip clubs in my town were harrased out of business by the city council. (they didn't like the fact that you could see both from the mayors office window)

Last I heard indecent exposure was still a crime.

I've had this argument with gay friends.

I suggested that the quickest way to get homosexuality accepted as mainstream was to parade in everyday work clothes, holding hands. An intentionally boring parade. 

I figure that everything that is "shocking" behaviour that is not exclusive to homosexuals: 

-distracts from the message
-puts things that should be behind closed doors in plain sight on public property and would normally end with criminal charges
-makes it seem that all homosexuals engage in those types of behaviour and believe that they should also be mainstream which is counter productive when trying to normalize their orientation to older conservative people who control the lion's share of votes.

it would be like having a Firearms Rights Parade and including a gang banger drive by float.


----------



## armyvern

c_canuk said:
			
		

> never? really...
> 
> I dunno, I'm sure if you had a straight parade (that didn't immediatly get labeled a hate crime), and featured an BSDM float, people would be in jail.



Well really ... won't it just be even greater the day that we just fully accept everyone for who they are and "as normal" --- which would negate the need for the Pride parade?

Let's face it, they've still many steps to go and many obstacles to overcome with being outright treated as "normal" and gaining "acceptance" as a normal, routine, and everyday part of life even here in Canada. That's already the "norm" for hetero couples, ergo no need for a parade to draw attention to the hetero cause. 

Yep, I certainly look forward to the day when a parade isn't required in order to gain tolerance and understanding of a cause. _Acceptance_, if you will. When finally being accepted and treated as "normal" ... perhaps then "normal" parade rules will apply, in that there will not be the requirement to parade to show that they too are just another average person trying to be happy in life and love.


----------



## Springroll

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The youth of today are certainly more comfortable, aware and accepting of that which was "previously spoken of but not to be seen" - and that, as far as I'm concerned, is a very good thing.



My 13 yr old son was telling me that his middle school has a special program for students who are gay, lesbian, bi etc. He said he went along with a friend of his (who is openingly gay) and had an incredible time. They talked about how their families/friends feel, and just had a good chat session in general. A little over a month ago, my kids and I went to our first lesbian wedding. One of the brides was a co-worker of mine, but the kids had never met her. The kids had a great time, but it did spark questions from my 7 yr old son. He was polite and kept them in his head til we were alone, but I definitely confused him when he asked how they were going to have babies, and I told him of their plans...lol

I think our own tolerances and attitudes are what directly affect the way our children will react to a situation and if we have an open mind and don't judge, then they won't. Also, if the children feel like they can be open and honest at school, without fear, then we will continue to see this incredible growth in our children.

Good on you and on the way you are raising your kids, Vern.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The world needs more Verns!  

The one thing I have going through my (very narrow mind) head though is this.  I know it is common for kids (or it was at some time) to have sleep overs, what happens when your kids are openly gay, does the sleep over disappear?  There would have been no way in the world for me to pull off a sleep over with my girlfriends when I was younger.


On the parade topic, why not just have a goddamn "love" parade, where everyone is welcome regardless of what you are doing behind closed doors or on the float.


----------



## armyvern

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The world needs more Verns!
> 
> The one thing I have going through my (very narrow mind) head though is this.  I know it is common for kids (or it was at some time) to have sleep overs, what happens when your kids are openly gay, does the sleep over disappear?  There would have been no way in the world for me to pull off a sleep over with my girlfriends when I was younger.
> 
> On the parade topic, why not just have a goddamn "love" parade, where everyone is welcome regardless of what you are doing behind closed doors or on the float.



Well, my daughter has had sleepovers - and her girlfriend has been at them. I call keeping control over what occurs at those sleepovers ... "parental supervision". I also provide that at my son's sleepovers.

That being said ... 10 girls crashing for the night (actually, it's usually the weekend vice a mere night around this house ...) as a formed group within the living room seems OK to me even if two happen to be gay. My daughter told me she was gay ... she didn't tell me she was also an _exhibitionist_. If she had, then I'd worry and my actions may be different.


----------



## Strike

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> On the parade topic, why not just have a goddamn "love" parade, where everyone is welcome regardless of what you are doing behind closed doors or on the float.



Perhaps that's where the parade is going?  I've known of parents marching with their kids, coworkers marching together to show support.  Heck, we've all seen the politicians marching as well.  Step by step...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The world needs more Verns!



And Springrolls as well** - this part speaks volumes re:  child rearing:



			
				Springroll said:
			
		

> .... it did spark questions from my 7 yr old son. *He was polite and kept them in his head til we were alone* ....



Well done to you, too!

** I refer to the plural of the poster/Army.ca member (although more of the delicious oriental "stuffed pasta" treats would not be out of line)


----------



## vonGarvin

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> On the parade topic, why not just have a goddamn "love" parade, where everyone is welcome regardless of what you are doing behind closed doors or on the float.


Berlin  already has one.  It would certainly be more inclusive than the current PC version(s).  "Gay rights" are here already.  Some people will refuse to accept homosexuality as normal, no matter what.  IMHO, the public display of images such as this:





 rank up there with pictures such as this:




In other words, both are fine, but both have their places, and I don't think that place is on a city street.


----------



## armyvern

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> In other words, both are fine, but both have their places, and I don't think that place is on a city street.



Or the television screen where, with every commercial, one can witness the "sex sells" mantra that goes with drawing attention to a product or, in the Pride Parade's case, a cause. Or any magazine where one will be subject to the same "attention" getting tactics being employed.

It's all around us. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W9NTEJOQrA&amp;feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krhB_An8fT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z2yudymW8o&amp;feature=related

Barvaria Beer??

Pepsi a la Britney Spears, Beyonce & Pink

Don't take the kids to the parade. Change the channel. Don't buy the mag. The option is out there.


----------



## Rodahn

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Or the television screen where, with every commercial, one can witness the "sex sells" mantra that goes with drawing attention to a product or, in the Pride Parade's case, a cause. Or any magazine where one will be subject to the same "attention" getting tactics being employed.
> 
> It's all around us.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W9NTEJOQrA&amp;feature=related
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krhB_An8fT4
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z2yudymW8o&amp;feature=related
> 
> Barvaria Beer??
> 
> Pepsi a la Britney Spears, Beyonce & Pink
> 
> Don't take the kids to the parade. Change the channel. Don't buy the mag. The option is out there.



I fully understand what your saying Vern, but I still prefer the following commercial.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4x9EVHhRwY&feature=related


----------



## armyvern

Rodahn said:
			
		

> I fully understand what your saying Vern, but I still prefer the following commercial.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4x9EVHhRwY&feature=related



Being a girl - I prefer hate this one the most ...  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IQkg21Qw1k&amp;feature=related


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Don't take the kids to the parade. Change the channel. Don't buy the mag. The option is out there.


Don't worry, I won't, and I do change the channel whenever anything I consider innappropriate is on (gratuitous violence, sex, etc).  I still however, don't think that a city street is a place for it.  Straight or gay, I don't buy that argument that since it's everywhere already, let's open the floodgates.  These are my city streets too, and if it's "open season", then let's let all groups out there have a day.   Even those groups that the PC crowd wouldn't want to see on their streets.  

Anyway, I think the worst offense this past weekend was the Hamilton parade organisers.  They were ignorant (they though that the CF was at Caledonia, arresting criminals) and they displayed bigotry against people who just wanted to partake in the parade.  Now THAT is an outrage.


----------



## armyvern

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think the worst offense this past weekend was the Hamilton parade organisers.  They were ignorant (they though that the CF was at Caledonia, arresting criminals) and they displayed bigotry against people who just wanted to partake in the parade.  Now THAT is an outrage.



Now _that_ - I can agree with.


----------



## vonGarvin

After re-reading my own posts, it seems as though I come across as some sort of stuffed shirt neolithic caveman with no capacity to understand anything other than my own belief system.  If any feels that way about me, you are mistaken; however, I can totally understand how you come to that conclusion.

So, to clarify, yes, it is true that I do not accept homosexuality as normal.  I have my own reasons for this belief of mine, and I don't have to explain myself to anyone.   Just as I don't expect others to explain their beliefs to me.

Do I tolerate it?  By all means YES.  

Now, remember, tolerance does NOT equal acceptance.

To further clarify, I do NOT believe that people who are homosexual should be persecuted.  I beleive that all persons, irrespective of who they are, have the same right to self-expression and self-determination as I.  As corny as it sounds, it's one of the reasons why I joined the CF.  Canada is a place that is rather tolerant of many things, and is, in my opinion and experiences, displays a world-class model of tolerance, which implies understanding.  

This is part of the reason that I teach my children to treat ALL people with respect.  I also try to show them a model of this behaviour (though I am human, and I make mistakes, trust me!!!!)  Though, when I do, I try to explain the errors of my ways to them.

So, in conclusion, though I may not believe that homosexuality is normal, that's just me, and maybe I'm the abnormal one (of course it's a possibility, but I don't believe it.  If I beleived that I was anything but normal, well...that's a loaded statement!!!) ;D

I just feel horrible that I have gone overseas (and will again) to defend people to do what they want, without fear of persecution or exclusion because of their chosen lifestyle.  And let's face it, the CF members who wanted to partake in the parade in Hamilton WERE excluded because of their lifestyle by a bigoted thought process.  If you don't believe me that being in the CF is a lifestyle, then don't just take my take on it, ask any CF member: it IS a lifestyle with its own language, norms, traditions and history.  In the words of Peter Griffin, it really grinds my gears to think in this day and age of tolerance, they were forbidden to march.  That is not what my Canada is all about.

[/rant]

OK, I'm off to take some more meds for my condition.  Sorry everyone!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think the worst offense this past weekend was the Hamilton parade organisers.  They were ignorant (they though that the CF was at Caledonia, arresting criminals) and they displayed bigotry against people who just wanted to partake in the parade.  Now THAT is an outrage.



Well put - let's see how organizers in Hamilton deal with it NEXT year....



> I think that legislators and the overwhelming majority of Canadian citizens understand the concept of what is morally acceptable or not; I'd also wager that most gay persons, like most hetero persons, would have distinct issues with allowing a float that would promote or condone the sexual abuse of minors. That's not what Gay Pride is about.



Also well said, and bang on - folks I know who are gay are LIVID at being painted with the same brush (or even mentioned in the same sentence/breath) as NAMBLA by overgeneralizers.  Gay does NOT equal pedophile.


----------



## TCBF

CountDC said:
			
		

> which worldwide human rights abuses are we responsible for??? Recent immigrant complaint because of fear from their own military??...



- You have to wonder if half the people coming off the boat nowadays even know that they are in Canada...


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

My personal opinions aside, as they really have no bearing on this matter, I am quite disappointed with their decision. I could care less if someone is gay. I do find it quite hard to believe that this was authorized. Our mission in Afghanistan is to allow this sort of freedom, I suppose. However, I do believe that personal lifestyles should stay just that, personal. Besides, the uniform looks some bland next to all the leather, feather boas, and silk.

Paddy,


----------



## armyvern

Padraig OCinnead said:
			
		

> My personal opinions aside, as they really have no bearing on this matter, I am quite disappointed with their decision. I could care less if someone is gay. I do find it quite hard to believe that this was authorized. Our mission in Afghanistan is to allow this sort of freedom, I suppose. However, I do believe that personal lifestyles should stay just that, personal. Besides, the uniform looks some bland next to all the leather, feather boas, and silk.
> 
> Paddy,



And that is a wonderful attitude to have.  

Oh -- you neglected to mention the whips.  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

<slight highjack>



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - You have to wonder if half the people coming off the boat nowadays even know that they are in Canada...



I'm guessing the foreign-trained MD's who have to work as health care aides in nursing homes (or driving cab - and yes, I've met such beasts) in cities where as many as one in four residents don't have a doctor get the message pretty quickly.

</slight hijack>

The issue isn't with the individual (s/he is in a country where we can express opinions without fear of retribution) - the issue's with the group and how they handled the request for a military recruiting presence.


----------



## Kilo_302

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/06/29/gay-pride.html?ref=rss

Interesting story. Good to see that the CF isn't turning away soldiers on the basis of their sexual orientation. Plenty of decorated Iraq war vets in the US have been discharged for that reason.


----------



## Springroll

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I don't work based on the bible ... I work based on life. I treat others how I'd like to be treated myself. Even if I weren't an athiest - I'd think that even God would be OK with treating others equally and without prejudice yes?



Fantastic post, ArmyVern. 
There are many who live by your above post, myself included.
If more would live by the "golden rule", well, the world would be a better place.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, in the UK....

Gay troops paid for Pride march

HOMOSEXUAL soldiers are to be paid travelling expenses so they can take part in Gay Pride marches – in uniform. 

They have been told to apply for rail travel warrants or claim their car mileage for marches in London this Saturday and in Brighton next month. 

Straight troops hit out at the move last night because they do not get the same privilege – even when they are going to see the REAL Queen. 

A furious squaddie said: “A mate is off to London in his uniform to the Queen’s Garden Party but he will not be getting mileage to go. Fair, equal or what?” 

It will be the first time Army and RAF gays have been allowed to march in uniform. Royal Navy sailors already can. 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article1367220.ece


----------



## Strike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the UK....
> 
> Gay troops paid for Pride march
> 
> HOMOSEXUAL soldiers are to be paid travelling expenses so they can take part in Gay Pride marches – in uniform.
> 
> They have been told to apply for rail travel warrants or claim their car mileage for marches in London this Saturday and in Brighton next month.
> 
> Straight troops hit out at the move last night because they do not get the same privilege – even when they are going to see the REAL Queen.
> 
> A furious squaddie said: “A mate is off to London in his uniform to the Queen’s Garden Party but he will not be getting mileage to go. Fair, equal or what?”
> 
> It will be the first time Army and RAF gays have been allowed to march in uniform. Royal Navy sailors already can.
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article1367220.ece



If the parade is sanctioned by the military and an official request was received for participation, than yes, they should get compensated.  However, the garden party, although sanctioned by the military, is attented by private invitation I believe.  D&B, you would probably know more as to the attendance to this event.  If that is the case (private invite) then compensation would not be covered.  It would be the equivalent of my being invited to attend an event, as an officer, at the GGs place.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Strike,

It sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. I was invited to the 'Garden Party' a couple of times (couldn't go) but could have slammed in a travel claim if I had got my act together. Good on the gay troops for leading by example and getting their admin in order!

D&B


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Last weekend I was out, actually in the line-up to a bar, and a guy I know, who ran in the last federal election got in line right behind me.  After 2 minutes the usual line chatter kicks up and despite my best efforts he saw me.  (read with drunken slur) “Hey I remember you,  you used to be in the NDP … then you quit and joined the army)  I replied with “Close, I joined the CF and then left the NDP  when they put forward a resolution  saying that we were acting like terrorists I left in disgust.”  He replied “yea but the army man, that sucks”. (I’ve known him for a while and I know there is no reasoning with him, and I never argue with drunken people)

I was about to walk away, many better places with better crowds I can text my friend’s on the new location, when the other people in line stopped everything they were doing and looked at him but his date said “what the hell are you saying, the army doesn’t suck…”  Long story short he got chewed out,  I didn’t pay cover and I didn’t see him inside later.

I know the type of mentality that some on the extreme left, the kind that thinks “Get Canadian troops out of Iraq end the occupation!” and then says “Send Troops into Darfur”. There is no reasoning with them.  I think this is the same reasoning that prompted the organizers in Hamilton to make their decision. 

On a bit of an aside:

Earlier on this thread someone said that tolerance isn’t the same as acceptance. Very true. But visibility is the most effective way to fight prejudice.  I live right by Moss Park, if I threw a Frisbee it could land on the playground (wind allowing ). 

For some strange reason (http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347166  ) some people in this area get nervous with people in uniform; especially at night when I’m walking home from the subway.   I know when I’m in uniform I represent a group much larger than myself, so I behave accordingly.  Honestly a smile is so effective it is kind of shocking.  The same group of guys who once got quiet as I passed and gave me the evil eye,  now smile say hello and occasionally (annoyingly) salute.  All that change from nothing but a hello, a nod and a smile.  This type of visibility changes attitudes and allows me to not schlep my uniform to and from work.

Most gay people I know honestly think the CF doesn’t allow them to join. Or we have a don’t ask don’t tell policy.  Imagine the good will we can get if we look to a group of people and give them a collective nod and a smile.  Might help with the recruiting numbers,  judging only by appearances it looks like most of them could easily carry a 40kg ruck 20Km no problem at all. (that’s a joke )


----------



## Sheerin

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Last weekend I was out, actually in the line-up to a bar, and a guy I know, who ran in the last federal election got in line right behind me.  After 2 minutes the usual line chatter kicks up and despite my best efforts he saw me.  (read with drunken slur) “Hey I remember you,  you used to be in the NDP … then you quit and joined the army)  I replied with “Close, I joined the CF and then left the NDP  when they put forward a resolution  saying that we were acting like terrorists I left in disgust.”  He replied “yea but the army man, that sucks”. (I’ve known him for a while and I know there is no reasoning with him, and I never argue with drunken people)
> 
> I was about to walk away, many better places with better crowds I can text my friend’s on the new location, when the other people in line stopped everything they were doing and looked at him but his date said “what the hell are you saying, the army doesn’t suck…”  Long story short he got chewed out,  I didn’t pay cover and I didn’t see him inside later.
> 
> I know the type of mentality that some on the extreme left, the kind that thinks “Get Canadian troops out of Iraq end the occupation!” and then says “Send Troops into Darfur”. There is no reasoning with them.  I think this is the same reasoning that prompted the organizers in Hamilton to make their decision.
> 
> On a bit of an aside:
> 
> Earlier on this thread someone said that tolerance isn’t the same as acceptance. Very true. But visibility is the most effective way to fight prejudice.  I live right by Moss Park, if I threw a Frisbee it could land on the playground (wind allowing ).
> 
> For some strange reason (http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347166  ) some people in this area get nervous with people in uniform; especially at night when I’m walking home from the subway.   I know when I’m in uniform I represent a group much larger than myself, so I behave accordingly.  Honestly a smile is so effective it is kind of shocking.  The same group of guys who once got quiet as I passed and gave me the evil eye,  now smile say hello and occasionally (annoyingly) salute.  All that change from nothing but a hello, a nod and a smile.  This type of visibility changes attitudes and allows me to not schlep my uniform to and from work.
> 
> Most gay people I know honestly think the CF doesn’t allow them to join. Or we have a don’t ask don’t tell policy.  Imagine the good will we can get if we look to a group of people and give them a collective nod and a smile.  Might help with the recruiting numbers,  judging only by appearances it looks like most of them could easily carry a 40kg ruck 20Km no problem at all. (that’s a joke )



The NDP candidate wasn't Dan Harris was it?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Sheerin said:
			
		

> The NDP candidate wasn't Dan Harris was it?



No.  I'd say his name, but as much as I don't like him I don't feel right hoping online telling a group of people things he said while drunk.  But I do feel okay with showing his picture - if you know him you know him, if you don't you can know your local NDPer isn't this guy.  I think he is just young and "idealist" who I don't think understands that what he means and indends to say may not be understood the way he intends it.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I've met a few people in the NDP with the same attitude.  I used to be a pacifist so I understand the point of view they approach the military with.  Disappointing.  Now as far as the organisers for Hamilton's pride,  I wish I could say I expected better from them. I think next time I'm the steel town I might have to look up some old contacts from the NDP and see if I can enlighten some people.


----------



## TCBF

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> No.  I'd say his name, but as much as I don't like him I don't feel right hoping online telling a group of people things he said while drunk. ...



- Good for you.  Well done.

- Canadian politics could use more people like you.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well if he had a chance in hell of winning the riding it would be different.  I'd turn my crack berry's camera to video mode and say something to set him off on a rant. (I had to stop myself when I saw a prominent Liberal cabinate minister kissing and holding hands with someone who wasn't his wife. )  But as it is he is just typical of the anti-military crowd.  

I respect people who are principled and stand up for their convictions - but there must be considerations given to how legitimate ones position is and how respectfull one is of others.  The fist part is debateable,  but the second is something one can see. Like others have said here, banning a group from participating based upon preconceptions, is both ignorant and disrespectful.  Another example: Fred Phelps.  The legitimacy of his point of view ( http://www.godhatescanada.com ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEQuW2v6U2o but I certainly can see how respectful one is.  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ukGKVvwXU )


----------



## mpo060

Homosexuality poses a direct threat to the heteronormative constructs of the military institution. It is not surprising that there would be a number of officers and men opposed, either publicly or privately, to a mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Having said that, this thread was particularly refreshing for me - especially after having read many others on the army.ca forums.

Canada has, without a doubt, been a human rights leader insofar as attempting to break down these heteronormative constructs. The Palm Center (an institute of the University of California at Santa Barbara committed exclusively to the study of Sexual Minorities in the military) has documented Canada's growing pains in this respect with moderate success. The more 'informal' progress on these matters is a matter of debate.

On the topic at hand, I disagree with Ms. Groom's decision to prohibit the participation of the Canadian Forces in the Pride Parade. But her decision, and that of the organizing committee, should be respected. Our Forces are actually fully/partially interoperable with several NATO countries that still allow for discrimination against GLBTQs (including, most prominently, the United States). I would be interested to find out whether or not our interoperability agreements protect our own soldiers against discrimination at the hands of our American counterparts. Other countries, such as Great Britain, have only as recently as 2000 begun to allow GLBTQs to serve. Echoing the sentiments of another poster, I would be hesitant to pass judgement on the decision because of how sensitive our global Queer community is to military issues. As lame as it might sound to the uninformed observer, the loyalties of our local queer community still lie with the global queer community. In terms of the relationship between the Canadian Forces and the GLBTQ Community, the institutional memory of both can very easily recall a time and place when things weren't as they are today. Growing pains are going to happen on both sides. 

On the more general topic of Gay Pride events ... every social movement has its fringe membership. It would be a terrible mistake to let that fringe membership define the broader aims of the social movement. A good majority of the folks marching in Pride are just that ... proud. There are a few that demonstrate their pride with a little more flamboyance than I, myself, would be comfortable with, but a thorough understanding of the Gay Rights movement in light of broad Queer Sociological Theory makes it easy to understand: oppression begets passionate defiance. Canadian Queers are fortunate that our parades are no longer protests, but rather celebrations.

Saying that one is proud of oneself is a profound social statement; one not often made in contemporary society (on any subject!). Being modest and humble are the aim of any game. I would argue that this is the new challenge for contemporary soldiers: to change institutional attitudes about homosexuality, one must be 'out' everywhere. A gay officer should be comfortable in public with his/her 'other.' I've heard many of my fellow officers express concern over being 'outed' in the forces. One common concern: that there exists potential for unspoken inflammation in the relationship between a queer Platoon/Company Commander and his/her 'old school' NCMs. You're right when you say that tolerance does not imply acceptance. But, just as in the relationship between parents and a child, acceptance characterized by understanding makes for a richer relationship. A queer can't change who they are. 

And a quick closing note on the ridiculous idea of straight pride parades (mentioned earlier) ... every day is Straight Pride day! Check out your billboards, turn on your TV, and open up a magazine. GLBTQs are acutely aware of how heterosexual everything is. For one day a year, a bunch of queers get together, honk horns, build floats, wear assless chaps, parade around in their underwear, and transform a few city blocks into a sexually inclusive paradise. It shouldn't be this difficult.


----------



## chrisf

Some disjointed thoughts on this subject...

While in highschool, a very good friend of mine came flaming out of the closet one day. He came to me and said "Hey, if I had a coming out party, would you come to it?". 

I said "Sure".

He said "You know what that means right?"

"Yeah."

"It means I'm gay!"

"I know. You're actually the last one to notice."

Some years later, this same friend, who at the time, was, for lack of a better word, a bit of a "queen" (I think this was more him still getting used to himself, he's since "calmed down" quite a bit. To quote the simpsons version of the gay pride parade "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" "We are used to it! You do this every year!" "Spoil sport") , asked me about joining the reserves, to which I said "Go for it, you might want to tone down the the "queer attitude a bit"

"Oh, they're not very accepting are they?"

"No, it's just really irritating."

Which is how I view it, and why I view this whole issue of the forces in the gay pride parade as bothersome.

While I admit that the fact that I'm younger then the majority of the members of the armed forces, and growing up in a "more enlightened time" (It was around the same time as my QL3 grad parade that the first homosexual marriage was performed by a padre) may have given me a slightly different perspective then my baby-booming peers, I don't see homosexuality as an issue. I've always been a subscriber to the "if you can do the job, then do the job" mentality. I'm willing to accept anyone that can do the job and conduct themselves as a professional.

That being said, I take some issue with CF members marching in the gay pride parade in uniform, because as far as I'm concerned, the forces should remain "politically blind", with no association with any causes (purely philanthropical causes, such as fund-raising for medical care and treament, etc, being the exception). I don't like the fact that the uniform can be associated with poltical cause. I have no problem with these individuals marching in the parade, and I have no problem with them identifying themselves as CF members if interviewed... it's just against associating the uniform with the cause... alternatively, I'm quite open about the fact I generally vote conservative, and I'd have just as much problem with a CF member showing up to a conservative rally in uniform.

Fortunately, I take much more issue with the organizers of the hamilton gay pride parade, in being so ignorant of their surroundings and reality as to make a decision like this...

End result, after looking at the pictures provided on the CBC website (And of course noting the prominent navy uniform ;D) I'm glad to see that the members taking part in the parade conducted themselves as professionals, and mainted their dress to an acceptable standard.


----------



## garb811

mpo060:

If Canadian pride parades are now a celebration and no longer a demonstration, how does Queer Sociological Theory justify continued passionate defiance?  Other than using it as an academic excuse for exhibitionism or borderline activities meant to shock "the prudes"?

1991 was 17 years ago and in my opinion, the vast majority of CF members today could really care less about the sexual orientation of an individual until that individual makes an issue of it.  At this point in time, if an officer is really concerned that their sexual orientation is going to poison their relationship with their Snr NCOs, I'd submit the officer should stop being so paranoid and just get on with becoming a competent and professional leader.  If the officer is able to achieve that not so simple goal then they've already won the battle, no matter what the Snr NCO actually privately thinks about their sexuality.  I know many Snr NCOs and WOs (myself included) who have absolutely detested their officer for a variety of reasons but continued to carry out their duties to the best of their ability because it is what professionals do; put their personal feelings aside and get on with it and pray for the day not too far down the road when the officer will be shuffled off to tick another box and a fresh young face comes in.

Personally, I do not think it is the CF which needs a change of attitude but rather people like yourself who seem to be living in the past even though you never experienced "the bad old days".  Yes, pre-'91 was not a great time to be gay and in the CF but I challenge you to show me any other employer, either public service or private, which has taken the steps the CF has to not only acknowledge and accommodate but also to integrate those of the community and to educate the CF as a whole about what that meant.  I would also challenge you to show me any organization with the robust safeguards in place that the CF has to ensure everyone is treated equally with an institutionalized mechanism to accept, investigate and redress any breaches of acceptable behaviour of all types, not just discrimination against those in the community.  It's funny you should bring up the issue of loyalty to the greater GLBTQ community as the concern about where the loyalties of GLBTQ individuals lay was a large factor in it taking so long for the CF to decide that sexual orientation wasn't a security concern any longer.

If you think you need to blaze a trail in the CF, or more specifically the MP Branch, don't worry about it.  In the Branch, that I know, are a LCol who is out to those that know them, a MWO who is out and who has been in a declared, committed relationship for the past 10 years at least, and who always brings their spouse to CF functions, no questions asked, no eyebrows raised.  I am aware of numerous others, some officers, some NCMs, who are publicly out, some who aren't except to those who they are friends with and some who I believe are GLB but they haven't told me and I haven't asked because, at the end of the day, I could really care less, which is the same attitude I have about those who I believe are straight.  Since joining the Branch I have personally worked with numerous individuals who were GLB.  In the early days it was an open secret in the guardhouses and when the time came, some came out, some didn't.  It was their choice and everyone respected that choice.  It certainly didn't impact on how we interacted, socially or professionally, because it just didn't matter then just like it doesn't matter now.

You state that it is your belief that "one must be out everywhere".  That sounds dangerously close to advocating the community "outing" CF members who choose to keep their sexuality a private matter for the "greater good".

Reference your questions regarding interoperability (and somehow using that to justify the exclusion of the CF from the parade when that was not even on of the issues publicly stated by the organizers), your ignorance of what that actually means is showing.

The vast majority of the items you listed are heterosexual in orientation because, believe it or not, the vast majority of Canada's population is heterosexual.  On the other hand, you don't have to look too far to find community oriented publications, television shows, public personalities etc etc etc even within the mainstream sources.

Finally, you stole the line my mother used to use when I asked when "Kids Day" was going to happen and it is as idiotic now as it was way back when she replied "Everyday is Kid's Day".  One day the community is going to have to face up to the fact that, at least in the major metropolitan areas of Canada, it is essentially mainstream and stop with the "in your face" confrontational attitude because there really isn't much more to be gained at this point because those who are non-accepting at this point never will.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Here's a question:  Why do people feel the need to share their predilections with the world?  At the end of the day, I don't care, nor am I interested in, who you decide to sweat up the sheets with.  Keep your shit to yourself, I'll keep my shit myself, and let's just get on with things.


----------



## George Wallace

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Here's a question:  Why do people feel the need to share their predilections with the world?  At the end of the day, I don't care, nor am I interested in, who you decide to sweat up the sheets with.  Keep your shit to yourself, I'll keep my shit myself, and let's just get on with things.


 ;D

Says the man sitting in a rocking chair on the front stoop, cleaning his shotgun and watching his timepiece very closely, waiting for his daughter's date to bring her home.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Okay, where's the camera hidden, George?  I really don't need to do that, they all get to come in and see my collection of edged weapons hanging on the walls.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

> Finally, you stole the line my mother used to use when I asked when "Kids Day" was going to happen and it is as idiotic now as it was way back when she replied "Everyday is Kid's Day".



My mom said that as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Day#Canada



> Canada
> Canada's "National Child Day" is held November 20th each year as enacted in Bill C-371, otherwise known as the Child Day Act, by the Parliament of Canada in 1993 to fulfill Canada's commitment to the United Nations General Assembly's recommendation to observe a Universal Children's Day. Canadian Children's Rights Council It is not a holiday in Canada.



I wish I had wikipedia back in the day.....


----------



## Greymatters

Regarding the Hamilton parade organizers, has anyone considered that the complainant was another anti-war protest group type, just expanding their opinion in a new direction...?  And that the organizers fell for it hook line, and sinker?  They're pretty up the only group out there that keeps parroting the same old line about human rights violations ad nauseum...


----------



## mpo060

I'm sorry that my original post was so unclear. I don't advocate "outing" members, and certainly don't feel the need to "blaze a trail." It's too bad that you have read those themes into my post.

When I say that "one must be out everywhere," I am referring to the *individual * choice to be out not being limited to a gay pride event. I have already stated that I know of many members that choose to keep their sexuality a private matter, but should not have assumed that my respect for that decision would be read into my statement. I believe that the true challenge of any GLBTQ CF member is to be comfortably out. Admittedly, many of the barriers to actually 'coming out' in the Canadian Forces are self imposed.

When I speak of "interoperability," I am referring to the practice of appointing the senior officers of allied nations to senior command positions within other allied militaries (i.e., Gens Hillier and Natynczyk both served in senior command positions in Fort Hood). My concern should have been articulated more precisely to ask: With the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the United States, would a senior officer identified gay/lesbian/bisexual be eligible for senior appointments with the United States military? I might not agree with Ms. Bloom's decision; but I am hesitant to pass judgement on it. There is too much information missing.

I am most appreciative for the strides that the Canadian Forces has made in accepting GLBTQ folks and have applauded them in this regard. Their leadership, especially when contrasted with the progress of our allies, has been exceptional. I had thought I had adequately expressed that in my post.

(In response to your 'challenge': it should be noted that the decision to cancel CFAO 19-20 could be characterized as "hesitant" to say the least. For more information on the complicated process, you can see the Gade section of "Out In Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military" published in 1996. If you would like to see examples of private corporations that have made the transition far more willingly, check out the HRC's Corporate Equality Index. Because many of these corporations are American, only a handful of them have been legally required to change their workplace policies in the same manner that the CF was.)

With respect to your comment in response to my invocation of Queer Sociological Theory: I was only explaining the origins of the pride event. Just because the word of law says we're equal, doesn't mean that we actually are. GLBTQs will continue to be discriminated against so long as we live in a heteronormative society. As you have so courteously pointed out, we're severely outnumbered (6%, + or - a few). The discrimination faced by sexual minorities is only slightly different than the discrimination complained of by women or racial minorities. A concealable stigma still presents the stigmatized with extraordinary challenges. Gay Pride events are a social response to those stigmas: "I don't care what you say, I'm proud of who I am and what I do." Many might argue that this attitude and the way that it is expressed in the form of gay pride events is a little self destructive; but the flamboyance of such demonstrations will eventually tone down. For a more explicit example, look no further than the second wave radical feminist movement of the 60's and 70's. 

Having said that, I can most definitely see where you are coming from. Pride is very often misunderstood and comes off as a touch unnecessary. 

This was a card that I got from a friend a while ago that I thought was absolutely hillarious:


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I'm reading on this thread, from a few people, that pay pride parades don't serve their purpose of convincing the majority that GLBT community is worth of their respect.

The pride parade isn't primarily for anyone but the GLBT community.  It is about shaking off the shame and degradation one has piled on oneself.  If you doubt me, have a quick peek at the history of St Patrick's day.  

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=851&display_order=2&mini_id=1082
"The First Parade
St. Patrick's Day is celebrated on March 17, his religious feast day and the anniversary of his death in the fifth century. The Irish have observed this day as a religious holiday for thousands of years.

On St. Patrick's Day, which falls during the Christian season of Lent, Irish families would traditionally attend church in the morning and celebrate in the afternoon. Lenten prohibitions against the consumption of meat were waived and people would dance, drink, and feast—on the traditional meal of Irish bacon and cabbage.

The first St. Patrick's Day parade took place not in Ireland, but in the United States. Irish soldiers serving in the English military marched through New York City on March 17, 1762. Along with their music, the parade helped the soldiers to reconnect with their Irish roots, as well as fellow Irishmen serving in the English army.

Over the next thirty-five years, Irish patriotism among American immigrants flourished, prompting the rise of so-called "Irish Aid" societies, like the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick and the Hibernian Society. Each group would hold annual parades featuring bagpipes (which actually first became popular in the Scottish and British armies) and drums.

No Irish Need Apply
Up until the mid-nineteenth century, most Irish immigrants in America were members of the Protestant middle class. When the Great Potato Famine hit Ireland in 1845, close to a million poor, uneducated, Catholic Irish began to pour into America to escape starvation. Despised for their religious beliefs and funny accents by the American Protestant majority, the immigrants had trouble finding even menial jobs. When Irish Americans in the country's cities took to the streets on St. Patrick's Day to celebrate their heritage, newspapers portrayed them in cartoons as drunk, violent monkeys.

However, the Irish soon began to realize that their great numbers endowed them with a political power that had yet to be exploited. They started to organize, and their voting block, known as the "green machine," became an important swing vote for political hopefuls. Suddenly, annual St. Patrick's Day parades became a show of strength for Irish Americans, as well as a must-attend event for a slew of political candidates. In 1948, President Truman attended New York City 's St. Patrick's Day parade, a proud moment for the many Irish whose ancestors had to fight stereotypes and racial prejudice to find acceptance in America.

Wearing of the Green Goes Global
Today, St. Patrick's Day is celebrated by people of all backgrounds in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Although North America is home to the largest productions, St. Patrick's Day has been celebrated in other locations far from Ireland, including Japan, Singapore, and Russia."

I took liberties with the pink,  showing some of the parallels that can be drawn.  I think it is important to note that many of the immigrants did actually talk funny, they really did attend a different church but guess what, they still could be proud of who and what they are.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

In my last post I didn't really tie into the theme of the thread - oops.   I'm not having any luck getting ahold of the socail network for Hamilton Pride,  but just in case someone here wants to http://www.hamiltonpride.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=61  That's the contact page:

Contact Us        
About HPFI  
Hamilton Pride wants to hear from you.  We welcome all comments and questions, especially those that help us adjust the programming during Pride week to best reflect our diverse community.
Get in touch by email:

Website & General queries: info@hamiltonpride.com 
Volunteers: volunteer@hamiltonpride.com
Media requests: media@hamiltonpride.com

Once again, I used the pink for my own emphasis.
Programming, partnership and sponsorship: chair@hamiltonpride.com
Accounts payable and receivable: treasurer@hamiltonpride.com
Call us at: 905-528-0207 ext. 245

Send us mail at:

Hamilton Pride Festival, Inc. 
101 - 140 King St. East (map) 
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 1B2


----------



## Jarnhamar

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I'm reading on this thread, from a few people, that pay pride parades don't serve their purpose of convincing the majority that GLBT community is worth of their respect.
> 
> The pride parade isn't primarily for anyone but the GLBT community.  It is about shaking off the shame and degradation one has piled on oneself.



mpo060's attached picture sums up my feelings on the whole gay pride thing perfectly.
I don't see how the theme and flavor of some of these parades/floats helps the "were just like you" imagine.

The pictures I see coming out of these parades make it look like a circus. I'd rather my children think homosexual means prefer partners of the same sex and not someone who dress up like it's Halloween.


----------



## Springroll

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I'd rather my children think homosexual means prefer partners of the same sex and not someone who dress up like it's Halloween.



But Halloween is so much fun!!!   ;D

I kid, I kid.

Just saw some pics from our local pride parade, and it seems pretty tame compared to some that I have seen.
Hope everyone who went had a great time.


----------



## mpo060

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I'm reading on this thread, from a few people, that pay pride parades don't serve their purpose of convincing the majority that GLBT community is worth of their respect.
> 
> The pride parade isn't primarily for anyone but the GLBT community.  It is about shaking off the shame and degradation one has piled on oneself.  If you doubt me, have a quick peek at the history of St Patrick's day.



Bang on. 



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> The pictures I see coming out of these parades make it look like a circus. I'd rather my children think homosexual means prefer partners of the same sex and not someone who dress up like it's Halloween.



We get preferences?


----------



## Poppa

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> The pride parade isn't primarily for anyone but the GLBT community.  It is about shaking off the shame and degradation one has piled on oneself.  If you doubt me, have a quick peek at the history of St Patrick's day.
> 
> http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=851&display_order=2&mini_id=1082
> "The First Parade
> St. Patrick's Day is celebrated on March 17, his religious feast day and the anniversary of his death in the fifth century. The Irish have observed this day as a religious holiday for thousands of years.
> 
> On St. Patrick's Day, which falls during the Christian season of Lent, Irish families would traditionally attend church in the morning and celebrate in the afternoon. Lenten prohibitions against the consumption of meat were waived and people would dance, drink, and feast—on the traditional meal of Irish bacon and cabbage.
> 
> The first St. Patrick's Day parade took place not in Ireland, but in the United States. Irish soldiers serving in the English military marched through New York City on March 17, 1762. Along with their music, the parade helped the soldiers to reconnect with their Irish roots, as well as fellow Irishmen serving in the English army.
> 
> Over the next thirty-five years, Irish patriotism among American immigrants flourished, prompting the rise of so-called "Irish Aid" societies, like the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick and the Hibernian Society. Each group would hold annual parades featuring bagpipes (which actually first became popular in the Scottish and British armies) and drums.



Ah yes...however, my ancestors didn't dance on floats wearing assless chaps and G-Strings to techno music.


----------



## vonGarvin

I still find the notion of being proud of your sexual orientation, though neither would I find it to be a source of shame, either.
Anyway, given that some 1-2 % of our population is homo- or bi-sexual(according to Statscan), it would be crazy to have anything other than a heteronormative culture.
As I've stated (and I'll say it again in case people are too lazy to look back in this thread), there are many "bad" things in this world, and bigotry is probably one of the worst.  Stop making excuses for the organizers of the Hamilton parade.  Even though I believe that homosexuality is anything other than "natural", that's not the point.  Have your parade, have a great day, and I wish you all the best. Having said all this, it's none of my business if anyone is gay, straight or otherwise.  In fact, it should be as moot as the fact if you're left handed, right handed or ambidextrous.
Okay, I've come off as a bigot enough I suppose :, suffice it to say here's to hoping that bigotry won't affect next year's Hamilton parade (or any other parade, for that matter).


----------



## Greymatters

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I still find the notion of being proud of your sexual orientation, though neither would I find it to be a source of shame, either.
> Anyway, given that some 1-2 % of our population is homo- or bi-sexual(according to Statscan), it would be crazy to have anything other than a heteronormative culture.
> As I've stated (and I'll say it again in case people are too lazy to look back in this thread), there are many "bad" things in this world, and bigotry is probably one of the worst.  Stop making excuses for the organizers of the Hamilton parade.  Even though I believe that homosexuality is anything other than "natural", that's not the point.  Have your parade, have a great day, and I wish you all the best. Having said all this, it's none of my business if anyone is gay, straight or otherwise.  In fact, it should be as moot as the fact if you're left handed, right handed or ambidextrous.
> Okay, I've come off as a bigot enough I suppose :, suffice it to say here's to hoping that bigotry won't affect next year's Hamilton parade (or any other parade, for that matter).



Unfortunately that's incorrect - at Statscan, some 1-2% of the population have self-declared their sexual orientation, which is quite a bit different from how many people are actually GLBT.  

Private surveys have had results of up to 5%, and studies on the subject at US institutes indicate that up to 10% of the population in North America could be GLBT.


----------



## vonGarvin

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Unfortunately that's incorrect - at Statscan, some 1-2% of the population have self-declared their sexual orientation, which is quite a bit different from how many people are actually GLBT.
> 
> Private surveys have had results of up to 5%, and studies on the subject at US institutes indicate that up to 10% of the population in North America could be GLBT.


Private surveys, funded by "someone" usually have an agenda, irrespective of the questions involved.  That 10% is a myth from the Kinsey report.  Long debunked, often quoted.
Still, suppose it's 20% or 2 %.  It matters not.  After all there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, right?


----------



## Greymatters

True, its hard to tell what's skewed and what isnt.


----------



## vonGarvin

Greymatters said:
			
		

> True, its hard to tell what's skewed and what isnt.


;D  VERY true.  
For others out there, I guess my point is this.  Statistics are nice, for baseball, maybe, but even then, even though a hitter may have a .308 batting average, each individual "At Bat" is just that, individual.  Same with people.  Some are jerks, some are not.  That's my only point, I suppose.


----------



## Greymatters

Throwing statistics out then, lets go with our instincts.  What would the GLBT percentage be if you had to guesstimate?


----------



## vonGarvin

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Throwing statistics out then, lets go with our instincts.  What would the GLBT percentage be if you had to guesstimate?


Wow, big question.  Heck, I wouldn't even have a schmick on how many sinister people there are out there (eg: left handed).  My daughter is left handed, so there's one out of 30 million.... >
I would hasard a guess anywhere from 1-5 %.  Somewhere between one in a hundred to one in twenty.  Now, that counts all Canadians, so, among the 16 year olds and older, it would be higher (not saying that younger than 16 aren't humans with preferences, just trying to keep this to the relative adult stage of life.  I'm 41 and I may yet reach adulthood!).  Maybe between one in fifty to one in ten? 
In "raw" numbers, assume that there are 30 million Canadians.  1 % is 300 000.  5 % is 1 500 000.  Somewhere in there?  
Anyway, whether only 1 Canadian were HBTS (Homo-, bi-, or trans-sexual), or all 30 million were, it matters not.  Some are jerks, worthy of your scorn, or some are not, not worthy of scorn.  There are a hell of a lot more importan things to worry about in life.  Such as poverty, crime, the Toronto Argonauts, whatever...


----------



## Greymatters

True, there are more important things to consider, but in this case, the debate got started as to actual percentages, so we should accord readers with at least a firm number or two...

I did research on this subject two years ago as part of a client project, and worked for a company where several senior partners and leading consultants were all part of the GLBT commnity.  If you were to assign a percentage, I would say 5% is very fair in respect to what has already been published.  What becomes more apparent is that those on the GLBt support side push for higher numbers than 5%, while those who oppose the GLBT lifestyle insist the numbers are lower than 5%.  The reason the numbers cannot truly be resolved is that most will not self-declare so no study can be considered truly accurate...

In conclusion...  :deadhorse:


----------



## The Bread Guy

And to those who may still think (quite incorrectly) think soliders as a group are homophobes, here's something from Anne Irwin (bio), an anthropologist who's spent time with an infantry battalion preparing for and deployed to Afghanistan (caveat:  I'm not impressed with some of the paraphrasing & "editorial triage" of the rest of the article, but I felt this bit was worth sharing):



> (....)
> Her time with the infantry has given Irwin insight not only into the way that queer soldiers are becoming more accepted, but also women in the infantry, as Canada is one of the few countries that allow women to serve in front-line positions  ....  "The infantry is still probably the most macho of all the trades," she says. "I wouldn't call it homophobia. I wouldn't go that far. *Certainly people have absorbed or followed the rules and know that they're not allowed to make openly harassing comments, but there's also a lot of joking that, if you didn't understand the context, may come across as homophobic joking. But I don't think it is  ....  The bottom line for them is if you do your job, you're accepted. What they care about is whether someone going to stand behind me, is someone going to do his share of the work?"*



Amen....


----------



## DONT_PANIC

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> And to those who may still think (quite incorrectly) think soliders as a group are homophobes, here's something from Anne Irwin (bio), an anthropologist who's spent time with an infantry battalion preparing for and deployed to Afghanistan (caveat:  I'm not impressed with some of the paraphrasing & "editorial triage" of the rest of the article, but I felt this bit was worth sharing):
> 
> Amen....



Dr. Irwin had taught a course in military anthropology at the U of C last fall.  While discussing the notion of going "field gay", she had mentioned one case in a visit to Afghanistan where a lesbian soldier had told her (Dr. Irwin) that she (the lesbian) was actually going "field straight" after a while.


----------



## GAP

Woman sues Canadian forces for $1.5m in lawsuit claiming sexual harassment
Canwest News Service   Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Article Link

QUEBEC -A woman who spent 25 years in the Canadian military is suing her former employer for $1.5-million, arguing she suffered years of sexual harassment and discrimination because she was a lesbian. In a lawsuit filed in Quebec Superior Court, Lise Gauthier claims she was sexually assaulted in 1982 and 1983 shortly after she joined the Forces in Trenton, Ont. She argues that the Canadian military considered her homosexuality as a "sexual abnormality" and she was repeatedly harassed both in CFB Trenton and when she was transferred to CFB Bagotville, in the Saguenay area, in 1994. The plaintiff claims that she was "psychologically and sexually harassed." A statement of defence Has not yet been filed.
end of article


----------



## daftandbarmy

Woman sues Canadian forces for $1.5m in lawsuit claiming sexual harassment
Canwest News Service  
Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008


 QUEBEC -A woman who spent 25 years in the Canadian military is suing her former employer for $1.5-million, arguing she suffered years of sexual harassment and discrimination because she was a lesbian. In a lawsuit filed in Quebec Superior Court, Lise Gauthier claims she was sexually assaulted in 1982 and 1983 shortly after she joined the Forces in Trenton, Ont. She argues that the Canadian military considered her homosexuality as a "sexual abnormality" and she was repeatedly harassed both in CFB Trenton and when she was transferred to CFB Bagotville, in the Saguenay area, in 1994. The plaintiff claims that she was "psychologically and sexually harassed." A statement of defence has not yet been filed.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=822118


----------



## Niteshade

Hrm - I am going to call BS on this one. If she was indeed harassed, she would likely have left the forces... but instead completes 25 years and collects her pension? Something isnt adding up. Also I suspect the DND has a pretty good paper trail of any complaints/discipline for any reported actions. My money is this will be settled. 

Nites


----------



## Harley Sailor

I guess it took her 20 years to work up the nerve.  Was she that worries about her career that she didn't complain until it was over?  If she had a case could she not have asked for her money 10 years ago?  I know; she had to wait until society found what happened to her to be unexceptable.  When we judge her case we need to look at how life was viewed then, not today.  Without even knowing the details I can bet that what happened would be unexceptable today, but it didn't happen today.


----------



## Niteshade

If it takes her 20+ years to file a grievance fine. Except, if it was SOOOO severe like she claims, and is worth the sizable sum of 1.5 million, well one needs to ask: Why did she not sue sooner? Sexual harassment in the workplace has been illegal for a good time.

I call cash grab.

Nites


----------



## jcph90

I guess she wanted her pension before she sued. It really sickens me, isn't there a statue of limitations or something like that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Hrm - I am going to call BS on this one. If she was indeed harassed, she would likely have left the forces... but instead completes 25 years and collects her pension? Something isnt adding up. Also I suspect the DND has a pretty good paper trail of any complaints/discipline for any reported actions. My money is this will be settled.
> 
> Nites



You should read about what the NIS and friends used to do way back in the day to people suspected of being _teh gay_.
If DND can loose your stupid contact information 40 times over what do you think the chances of them loosing something 25 years old?

If the military was her career, and being gay was illegal, socially unacceptable and a career killer, do you really need to wonder why she would just STFU and soldier on?


----------



## Niteshade

I think there is. It's muddled though.

Criminal action (prosecution for an offense) has no statute of limitations.

General claims (Civil court) is usually 6 years, with some exceptions.

I am not sure if this falls into the "exception" category. It won't see a trial anyway. It will be settled out of court.

Nites


----------



## Teeps74

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> You should read about what the NIS and friends used to do way back in the day to people suspected of being _teh gay_.
> If DND can loose your stupid contact information 40 times over what do you think the chances of them loosing something 25 years old?
> 
> If the military was her career, and being gay was illegal, socially unacceptable and a career killer, do you really need to wonder why she would just STFU and soldier on?



How did you get so smart FD? I could not have written better myself.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Hrm - I am going to call BS on this one. If she was indeed harassed, she would likely have left the forces... but instead completes 25 years and collects her pension? Something isnt adding up. Also I suspect the DND has a pretty good paper trail of any complaints/discipline for any reported actions. My money is this will be settled.



Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not illegal to sue the gov't while you're still working for it?

Now, the 25 year gap?  Good question...


----------



## Slim

Hi Gents

I'm not seen here much anymore but do lurk and keep tabs...

I will risk putting my size 12 EEE in my mouth and wade in on the issue as it were...

I recently lost a good friend to suicide.

He was a soldier and police officer with good career histories in both services.

He was sexually harassed JUST ONCE...and it had such a profound effect on him that, eventually, he felt that he would never be rid of the stain of it and took his own life.

This was many years after theinitial incident occured. I kow and have served in those dark days for long enough not to doubt his story for a moment.

We are all effected differently by traumatic events...sometimes the pot boils and, even though it be long after, it just can't stay inside anymore...

I'm not saying she's right or wrong...just some food for thought.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Teeps74

Thanks Slim, it is never easy for us to talk about our friends and loved ones lost.

We must all remember that different things/events will impact us all differently. Judging a person by our own expereinces is not usually an effective way to judge someone. I am a jovial kind of person myself, and rarely do I take an insult personally... I do however know several people that take even the slightest put down very personally, and hold grudges for years over it. We do not have to understand these differences, we only have to acknowledge them.


----------



## Slim

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Thanks Slim, it is never easy for us to talk about our friends and loved ones lost.
> 
> We must all remember that different things/events will impact us all differently. Judging a person by our own expereinces is not usually an effective way to judge someone. I am a jovial kind of person myself, and rarely do I take an insult personally... I do however know several people that take even the slightest put down very personally, and hold grudges for years over it. We do not have to understand these differences, we only have to acknowledge them.



I think that it must be pretty aweful to have something like that burning you up on the inside. I'm sure it was only made worse by the knowledge that the senior NCO's and the guy's troop leader just stood there, watching and laughing.

If that incident had taken place today people would be off to jail! But this was back in the late 80's when that sort of thing was just...funny.


----------



## Armymedic

Slim, 
so I am on the same page, the person in the above post worked with us in different spots in Gagetown?


----------



## garb811

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> You should read about what the NIS and friends used to do way back in the day to people suspected of being _teh gay_.


NIS wasn't around when homosexuality was considered a security concern, it was the SIU who did those files.


----------



## Slim

Prairie Dog said:
			
		

> Slim,
> so I am on the same page, the person in the above post worked with us in different spots in Gagetown?



Jeez...It's been so long since I chatted on here I actually had to go look you up so that I knew who I was actually speaking to! 

Regarding your post...you're right, of course. It's him...Guy couldn't let it go...I still have his phone number in my phone. Can't seem to get around to erasing it for some reason.



It just sucks... 



Cheers

Slim


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not illegal to sue the gov't while you're still working for it?
> 
> Now, the 25 year gap?  Good question...



Well, depends how bad it was I guess.

1982 + 25 year career = 2007 retirement = only 1 year eligible to sue.

I remember the days when CF females were being busted in Shelburne, Cold Lake etc by the SIU and charged because they happened to be lesbians. Apparently we've many young ones around here who don't realize that the CF is not now what it once was.

This girl isn't the first to sue DND for this. It was those women and men who were getting out back in the 80s after putting up with "too" much due to their sexuality sticking up for themselves once they got out - that have resulted in the changes that we see now. We see a change ... there's probably a court order behind it somewhere. It's part of our history - sadly.

From Perception Magazine (page 77)



> *ARMED FORCES – CANADA*
> Lesbian arms [including issue of “five women discharged from the Canadian Forces for lesbian activity at the Shelburne, N.S. military base”].
> P14 [1985]: 18 (35cm.)
> 
> [About 8000 Canadian Forces personnel have been given compulsory questionnaire concerning admitting homosexuals to military]. From Angles.
> P29 [1986]: 11 (5cm.)
> 
> Tories reject Armed Forces study [which recommends continuing not to employ homosexuals in Canadian military].
> P34 (July 22, 1987): 11 (7cm.)
> 
> Lesbian sues military [newsnote that unnamed former air force lieutenant has reportedly “taken the military to Federal Court because she was forced out for being a lesbian”].
> P55 (v8n2)(Feb. 28, 1990): 12 (11cm.)
> 
> Military loses battle [in ongoing attempt to bar gays/lesbians from service; “independent Security Intelligence Review Committee said August 15 that…policy of discriminating…is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”; result of complaint lodged by Michelle Douglas of the air force].
> P59 (v8n6)(Aug. 29, 1990): 17 (47cm.)
> 
> Gays no problem [Judge R.J. Marin inquiry says Special Investigation Unit of Canadian Forces should remove any reference to sexual orientation as reason for conducting investigation; also Justice Department appealed Michelle Douglas reinstatement decision].
> P60 (v8n7)(Nov. 21, 1990)[dated Oct. 10/90 on cover]: 17 (30cm.)
> 
> Lesbian’s battle [Michelle Douglas’s complaint to Security Intelligence Review Committee in 1990 led to finding that Forces violated her constitutional rights; now Canadian Armed Forces has appealed decision to Federal Court of Appeal].
> P66 (v9n5)[misnumbered on contents page as v9n4](Aug. 14, 1991): [18] (12cm.)
> 
> Fighting the military [“Canadian military continues its overt practise of discrimination against gays and lesbians…”; method used; latest victim, Keitha Coates].
> P71 (v10n2)(March 18, 1992): 18 (17cm.)
> 
> Queers in the army [Michelle Douglas wins three-year fight with Canadian Armed Forces; monetary settlement; Ottawa agreed also to court order declaring discrimination against lesbians/gays a Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation; some details of Douglas’s career and of the legal case].
> P77 (v10n8)(Dec. 9, 1992): 21 (44cm.)
> 
> DND won’t come clean [Department of National Defence “unwilling to provide compensation for many gays and lesbians who were drummed out of the Armed Forces when it was discovered they were gay”; additional details].
> P79 (v11n2)(March 10, 1993): 20 (18cm.)
> 
> Thwaites still fighting [Simon Thwaites still waiting for more than $152,000 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Canadian Armed Forces to pay him; ruled he was unjustly fired; was dismissed in 1989 after it was discovered he was HIV-positive; etc.].
> P83 (v11n6)(Sept. 15, 1993): 13 (33cm.)
> 
> PERCEPTIONS: the first twenty-two years, 1983-2004: an index to the Canadian gay & lesbian newsmagazine, compiled by Alex Spence, Perceptions Publications Saskatoon, Canada, 2005.
> 77
> 
> Thwaites gets money [Federal Court judge orders Defence Department to immediately pay Simon Thwaites the $152,000 awarded to him by Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal; Thwaites fired from navy in 1989 when learned he was HIV-positive].
> P84 (v11n7)(Oct. 27, 1993): 22 (19cm.)
> 
> Over at last [Simon Thwaites fired from Canadian Forces in 1989 when it was learned he was HIV-positive; appeal to Federal Court led to Justice Frederick Gibson’s ruling that he had been unfairly released; Forces announced would not appeal].
> P89 (v12n4)(June 8, 1994): 23 (11cm.)
> 
> Airborne bashers [former member of “disgraced and disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment,” Dany Pelletier, reports hearing many stories of gay bashing when at Petawawa base from 1980 to 1985; tried to present story to federal hearings, but was refused].
> P101 (v13n8)(Dec. 6, 1995): 21 (14cm.)
> 
> Speaking out costly [newsnote that Lt.-Commander William Glover demoted for addressing anti-bigotry rally in London; demotion called discriminatory; etc.].
> P119 (v16n2)(March 18, 1998): 24 (12cm.)
> 
> He’d rather switch and fight [Department of Defence criticized for paying for a sex change operation of a male sergeant; Defence Department will not release sergeant’s name; etc.].
> P125 (v16n8)(Dec. 9, 1998): 23 (14cm.)
> 
> You go, girls! [Canadian Department of National Defence has ordered 26 episodes of  PrideVision’s fitness program, “Urban Fitness,” hosted by “out Derek Noble”; to be aired on closed circuit TV to troops in Europe and Middle East; etc.].
> P155 (v20n6)(Sept. 11, 2002): 23 (13cm.)



A mere 10 years ago some of the  "big newsworthy" ones above occured.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> How did you get so smart FD? I could not have written better myself.


(Including yourself) I've had some awesome leaders who took me under their wing and learned from 



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> NIS wasn't around when homosexuality was considered a security concern, it was the SIU who did those files.



Ahh right you are thank you.

re: coming forward.
I thought it was a little weird to bring it up 25 years later, then again how many victims of sexual abuse come forward years and years later? I'm not gonna judge them.


----------



## TCBF

- Good luck suing the military for harrassing you for something you were doing which was ILLEGAL.  She was in violation of The Code of Service Discipline and engaging in behaviour which made her susceptable to blackmail and coersion - in other words: A SECURITY RISK.


- The law has changed now, but past actions are judged by the laws of the day - not the laws of today.


----------



## armyvern

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Good luck suing the military for harrassing you for something you were doing which was *ILLEGAL.  She was in violation of The Code of Service Discipline and engaging in behaviour which made her susceptable to blackmail and coersion - in other words: A SECURITY RISK.*
> 
> - The law has changed now, but past actions are judged by the laws of the day - not the laws of today.



Which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional and in violation of Charter rights. The CF was ordered to remove all refs to "sexual preference" from NDA etc, as was the SIU ordered to remove "sexual preference" from it's "grounds to investigate".

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the CF LAWS that were ILLEGAL, ... thus they were nullified. In effect, the Supreme Court has already ruled that being a lesbian or a gay male was NOT illegal and that the CF saying it was ... was the illegality that was occuring. 

I think history would show that being a gay male or female and being "blackmailed" about it poses absolutely ZERO more risk to security than being a heterosexual male sleeping with a female. Mata Hari, some Lords in England ... blackmailed - espionage - etc ... all sleeping with the opposite sex.


----------



## geo

Solution to prevent blackmail....
Don't keep it a secret


----------



## TCBF

geo said:
			
		

> Solution to prevent blackmail....
> Don't keep it a secret



- Works if you're single...


----------



## TCBF

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... In short, the Supreme Court ruled that it was the CF LAWS that were ILLEGAL, ... thus they were nullified. In effect, the Supreme Court has already ruled that being a lesbian or a gay male was NOT illegal and that the CF saying it was ... was the illegality that was occuring. ...



- Which is where the Supreme Court stopped interpreting the law and started writing it.  NONE of the surviving authors of the original charter supported the Supreme Court on this.  Some even went so far as to say that gay rights were DELIBERATELY excluded. Let's just say the media pretty much ignored them.

- My REAL beef with the Supreme Court is that it can pick or choose which cases it wants to try.  IN OTHER WORDS, if they refuse to hear a case they defacto AGRREE with the lower court's ruling WITHOUT having to provide a finding and legal JUSTIFICATION for that finding at all.  No doubt, they feel that they can avoid historical responsibility for our slip from democracy.  It won't work...


----------



## Teeps74

Sometimes idiotic laws, which have exactly zero bearing on reality need to get stomped out. The Supreme Court demonstrated intelligence and forthought in doing so in this case.

The fact that Steve may be married to Brian, has exactly zero to do with whether or not Steve can dig a trench, hump the weight, or man the GPMG. There is no sex in uniform, so who anyone is sleeping with regardless of sex has exactly zero impact on the profession of soldiering. End of story, and the courts, the Charter, NDA, QR&O's, CFAO's and DOAD's all agree on this.


----------



## geo

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Works if you're single...


also works if your "spouse" is in the know & supports ya.


----------



## garb811

It's easy to look at past actions from today's viewpoint and go, "That was wrong!"  The fact was, when it was decided that homosexuality WAS a security risk, homosexuality was also a Criminal Offence and completely against societal norms at the time.  Society evolved and so did the laws, as did the CF when it was forced to change.  The CF is many things but a leader in adopting changing societal norms and expectations is not one of them but looking back from "today" and applying our current standards to "then" doesn't do anyone any good.  

I would also point out that DND and the SIU were hardly alone in using sexual orientation as a factor in vetting but the military lifestyle made it much easier to end up being outed.


----------



## armyvern

Casing said:
			
		

> Bang on, there.



I'm not so sure of that. We're talking about different times altogether.

Perhaps she loved her job, just not some of the people and incidents she had to deal with? During the early 80s --- just being a woman in the CF (or the 'professional' Canadian civil workplace) saw discrimination as tolerable, acceptable, and _normal_. Women being paid less than men for doing the same jobs etc. These were times when even straight Canadian women were released from the CF due to becoming pregnant. These were times when even civilian employment tolerated and condoned discrimination against the female workplace in the way of wage disparity, hours, stereotyping , promotions etc.

You know - if every one of the women who lived and 'worked' through these times had simply given up and gotten the hell out, the CF wouldn't be where we are today. That doesn't mean that by the fact that they stayed in that they "accepted" what was happening to them or that what was happening to them was "right". It also doesn't mean that what happened to them didn't have "negative effect".

This case in particular happens to be about a female, but this wasn't limited to women - gay men found themselves treated as pariahs by all of Canadian society as well. Some of them made it through careers in the CF - tough as that may have been for them - I am quite sure it has affected some of them for the rest of their lives. Gay men have sued as well.

The fact is, Canadian society as a whole has advanced - in a very good way - on this front. By choosing to "stay" in the CF and tolerate the crap, they simply choose "*where* they were going to be subjected to the poison". This does, in a way, speak well of the CF - these people loved their jobs and their Country enough to stay in it through the hard times and the discrimination - they just didn't happen to love the abuse and discrimination that occured as parcel to that.

The argument that if one doesn't like discrimination they should just get out else that discrimination is their fault for putting up with it or that by their "staying in" we've somehow proved it didn't affect them, just doesn't wash with me. We have plenty of members in the CF even today who lived through those times, witnessed some of that discrimination, were subject to it, or tossed some of it upon others themselves - male and female (lest there be any mistake that this is a 'female' thing).

I've never found myself to be the victim of discrimination/harassment etc, but I can assure you that I have sat with many a men out in the field, in the mess etc, and we talk about the "days" back when I'd not be allowed to be doing some of the things I've done. Comments such as "I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have a chick in F Troop with us" or "it's not like the old days when the women only came out of the typing pools when coffee had to be served to VIPs". I've heard - from guys who were around when that was the norm. And a great many of them think back and say the same comments as I "thank gawd that times have changed."

I will not be convinced that _*some*_ people who were on the shitty end of that stick and those times were not profoundly affected by things that happened to them during those times. Plain old statistics and human nature dictate that some of them _must_ have been negatively impacted by events and occurrences.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure of that. We're talking about different times altogether.



Which was the point of my post. Things were different 25 years ago, he was agreeing with that statement.


----------



## armyvern

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Which was the point of my post. Things were different 25 years ago, he was agreeing with that statement.



I misread your post that he responded to.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Right-o   

It's an interesting argument.
Something that was illegal 25 years ago, which is legal now, which now has been decided that making it illegal 25 years ago was deemed illegal itself.

Makes you wonder whats illegal now that will be allowable in 20 years.


----------



## armyvern

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder whats illegal now that will be allowable in 20 years.



Or chicks in the field back to being illegal again !!??  >

But, hopefully ... not drugs ... never become legal ... knock knock knock.


----------



## PMedMoe

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> re: coming forward.
> I thought it was a little weird to bring it up 25 years later, then again how many victims of sexual abuse come forward years and years later? I'm not gonna judge them.



How many victims come forward 25 year later?  The scandals in the Catholic church come to mind.
I won't judge them either (walk a mile in their shoes...).


----------



## Harley Sailor

Again the question I ask is "why do they wait so long" and the only answer I could come up with is that they had to wait until society was on their side.  

I understand that it bothered them.  I myself was a Catholic alterboy who drank a lot of wine in the church basement.  I have very little memories of those days, I guess I am one of the lucky ones.  I can list a half dozen cases in Nova Scotia alone that abuse happened and people received money for.  All of which I know people involved.  Shelburne boys school comes to mind, where man after man received money for things that happened to them.  At the time it was the norm to beat boys who were bad.  Now that beating is bad they sued and received money for being punished misdeeds they did.  

Staying with Shelburne, I knew many of the females released for liking other females.  Some were just because they were pushing a life style that was unacceptable in the CF.  Just because it was later deemed legal should not change the fact that it was illegal at the time.  It would be like smoking pot (NOT that I think it should be legal) if it becomes legal does that mean that everyone we have convicted can come back and sue?

Will one day someone sue the school system for giving us the strap?  Will that then give us people who received it once a week a reason to sue for millions?  That seems to be the way it goes.


----------



## geo

> many of the females released for liking other females.  Some were just because they were pushing a life style that was unacceptable in the CF.  Just because it was later deemed legal should not change the fact that it was illegal at the time.  It would be like smoking pot (NOT that I think it should be legal) if it becomes legal does that mean that everyone we have convicted can come back and sue?



Though guy on guy or Girl on girl relationships were "illegal" in the past..... harrassment was & is illegal too.

Making people's life miserable was never permissible & it certainly has no standing in law.  If it happened to her, then it was wrong.


----------



## geo

Ummm... to the question of "why did it take so long"

Person mighta kept it bottled up inside for umpteen years - eating away inside.
With help from family and friends, learning to live with yourself, it all come out.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is 'why come forward now' really an issue?

She could either have an honest reason for waiting 25 years or she could see a get rich plan and just ant money.

While the latter may be slimey, if the CF DID shit the bed, should they be made to pay regardless of someones motives?

I don't like the fact that the CF can pay for sex changes however how it was explained to me (CF medical pan must provide the same level as OHIP etc..) it made sence.


----------



## vonGarvin

For people to criticise this woman for coming forward at any time, to me, is a bit rash, to say the least.  Yes, it was illegal for homosexuals to join the forces at one time.  One could argue that she broke the law; however, that law has since been rescinded, "struck down", as it were for being unconstitutional.  I do have issue with a monetary amount attached to any lawsuit, because (a) 1.5 million would not be punitive against the government and (b) I don't think that 1.5 million dollars will heal the wounds she has.  I don't have an answer to this, and I hate offering problems with no solutions, but there it is.


----------



## OldSolduer

Because homosexuality was considered illegal, immoral etc, homosexuals were prone to be blackmailed by the agents of the USSR into giving up state secrets etc.
It may sound ludicrous now, BUT it wasn't then.


----------



## geo

Homosexuality was illegal.... but so is/was harrassment, rape & blackmail.
I would contend that, although on the books as illegal, homosexuality was if fact immoral to that's day's society.
Harrassment, rape & blackmail woulda been illegal.


----------



## OldSolduer

geo once again you hit the nail on the head. It was considered immoral and a threat to unit cohesion. Therefore gay and lesbians were outed once discovered.
As one colonel put it:

"Hear about it at Morning PT and gone by coffee break"


----------



## Blackadder1916

To add some perspective to this discussion, perhaps a review of some dates would be handy.

This woman joined the CF in or shortly before 1982 after which she was sexually assaulted (and again in 1983).
Was posted to Bagotville in 1994.
The restrictions on homosexuals serving in the CF were lifted in 1992.
Homosexuality was decriminalized (removed from the Criminal Code) when the omnibus Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed in May 1969.

While homosexuality was contrary to CF regulations, it was not a specific offense under the Code of Service Discipline (and never was) when this woman joined the CF.  It was dealt with more along the lines of an abnormal psychiatric condition, though you would probably not find many medical officers in the 80s who would be totally comfortable with judging it a medical problem.  We don't consider someone suffering from mental illness to have an "illegal" condition but the CF sometimes releases them just the same as we did with homosexuals.  Of course back in the 80s, when this woman joined, the perception of homosexuality was considerably different.  It is very easy to use the excuse of "security risk" as the primary reason to exclude PALs (Personnel with an Alternate Lifestyle, that was the acronym used by the section in D Pers A circa mid 80s who dealt with such releases).  However, the common theme back then in our objections to permitting PALs was that it would be "disruptive to unit cohesion and military efficiency".

But that should have no bearing on the allegations of this woman who served the majority of her career following the lifting of those restrictions (though she was still allegedly harassed and discriminated against).

As it has been mentioned about the SIU and their hunt for homosexuals, it always seemed that they took an inordinate interest in "abnormal sexual practices".  I've had a few friends/acquaintances who served in the SIU, it was always easy to get their goat by calling them the "f****t hunters" a nickname originally told to me by someone in the SIU.  On one occasion (early 80s), an SIU investigator asked me some questions about a former neighbour in PMQs with whom I had some problems (his damned dogs used to keep crapping in my yard and chewing my TV cable).  He was getting his security clearance upgraded and because of some correspondence from me to base housing about his dogs, it came to the SIU's attention that I didn't particularly like him.  When concluding the interview, the investigator asked me if I thought my former neighbour was gay (he used another term back then) since he was a single parent.  I was surprised by the question, but replied that I really didn't know or care what his sexual practices were, I was only concerned about his dogs.  The SIU type then said that they were required to ask that question about everyone they are doing a security check on.  In 1992, when gay and lesbian members were finally permitted to openly serve, I asked a friend who was with the local SIU Det what he thought about it and how it would effect his operations, he said that it was about time and now they could devote more resources to actual threats.


----------



## TCBF

- Blackadder 1916,

Thank-you for that detailed and informative post (I wish I could write more of those!).


----------



## Slim

> I asked a friend who was with the local SIU Det what he thought about it and how it would effect his operations, he said that it was about time and now they could devote more resources to actual threats.



How times do change...

I get the impression that we sometimes focus on our friends for the wrong reasons when we should be focused on the real threats.

I don't swing that way but have no problem with those who do, as long as its not shoved at me...

Glad those days are gone.

Slim


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

:boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> :boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:



Sometimes ... that is what lawsuits are settled for. 

Unfortunately, one can't sue for "an apology" - even if it's all they want.


----------



## Harley Sailor

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> :boring:   Wake me when she decides to sue for a public acknowledgement and an apology from those whom allegedly did this rather than $1.5 million. :boring:



I agree... If it is about the harm done then go after the people who did the harm... If it is about the money than go after the people who did the harm... By going after the company you worked for just proves you are going after who you can get money out of... I was part of the CF back when it happened and I had nothing to do with harming her... The same for the rest of us here, I would hope...


----------



## armyvern

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I agree... If it is about the harm done then go after the people who did the harm... If it is about the money than go after the people who did the harm... By going after the company you worked for just proves you are going after who you can get money out of... I was part of the CF back when it happened and I had nothing to do with harming her... The same for the rest of us here, I would hope...



How do you know the CF didn't?

She was gay. It wasn't condoned.

She was sexually assaulted. Perhaps she reported it and the CF did nothing? That was NORMAL way back in those days. Shitloads of men and women have been harassed in this outfit - and we've been sued for it before; why do you think that SHARP came about? Because it was the CFs habit to ignore some of these kinds of things. And, often - the "harassment" of them was done under the guise of "officialdom" - such as the SIU being required to ask anyone making a complaint about a CF member whether they may have been "gay" (as detailed in an earlier post). Employers ARE responsible for what happens within their workplace - especially so if they are aware and turn a blind eye. Perhaps that's the case?There are people whove been sexually assaulted who are entirely fucked up for life in this world because of that incident - even if it was handled through law and dealt with. In this case, no one knows the details and facts ... yet. Just because YOU personaly didn't "know" or "cause" doesn't mean that your employer was innocent in the matter. THAT will be determined with the outcome of the lawsuit.

And, how the heck do you know that she did NOT ask for an apology which fell on deaf ears and led to the lawsuit?

The headline was good, but until the details of the lawsuit come out ... no one here knows exactly why the "CF" is named. Time will tell.


----------



## Harley Sailor

So she knowingly was in the CF when she knew being gay was not allowd and complains when she gets harassed.  That sounds like standing in the middle of the road and complaining when you get hit by a car.  So who do you sue, the person driving the car or the owner of the road.

SHARP training, now there was a waste of a couple a good days.  Yes, I was required to do it more then once because it didn't seem to take the first time.

"Perhaps she reported it and the CF did nothing" and maybe that was because at the time the thinking was that it was no big deal.  I agree that a lot of what was the norm is now unexceptable, but a lot was exceptable until human rights entered the CF.

I say again what I have said all along "judge actions in the eyes of the time they happened"  Compensation should also be given with respect to the time it happened and 25 years ago $1.5 million would be unheard of for a little bit of harassment.


----------



## PMedMoe

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> So she knowingly was in the CF when she knew being gay was not allowd and complains when she gets *harassed*.  That sounds like standing in the middle of the road and complaining when you get hit by a car.  So who do you sue, the person driving the car or the owner of the road.



There is a big difference between being "harassed" and sexually assaulted.

As has been said many times in this thread, being gay might not have been allowed but neither is/was harassment.


----------



## Harley Sailor

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between being "harassed" and sexually assaulted.


That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.


----------



## Harley Sailor

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As has been said many times in this thread, being gay might not have been allowed but neither is/was harassment.



As for harassment, it might have been illegal, but it sure as heck WAS allowed in a lot of units.  That is why so many people have VA penisions for it now.


----------



## armyvern

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.



Just as the whole hell of a lot of people got VAC pensions for the harrassment that occured way back when it was commonplace ...

What if the Assault was reported and the CF did nothing because "well, she's gay - she was asking for it?" Is it the CFs problem then? Guess what ... just like harassment - complaints of sexual assualt occurances made by females were often swept under the carpet and not actioned.

For someone who admittedly doesn't know the details and facts --- you are pretty quick to condemn her.

Time will tell.


----------



## Harley Sailor

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> For someone who admittedly doesn't know the details and facts --- you are pretty quick to condemn her.
> 
> Time will tell.



You are so right, I am quick to condemn.

Not for laying the law suit, but as I said before, for waiting so long and for asking for $1.5 Million.  If it meant that much why wait so long and why ask so much.  Even if she only got $1000 it would say yes you were right and we are sorry.  A $100,000 would do the same and not show greed.


----------



## garb811

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because it was the CFs habit to ignore some of these kinds of things. And, often - the "harassment" of them was done under the guise of "officialdom" - such as the SIU being required to ask anyone making a complaint about a CF member whether they may have been "gay" (as detailed in an earlier post).



The SIU conducting inquiries as to someone's sexual orientation IAW currently policies and procedures was no more "harassment" than MP conducting an investigation into misuse of a DND computer to surf pr0n contrary to the acceptable use policy today.  Additionally, members of the SIU were not "required" to ask if a CF member about whom a complaint had been made was gay unless the complaint was in relation to the member's sexuality.  Other topics in relation to sexuality investigated by the SIU were extra marital affairs, transvestism, incest, bestiality, exhibitionism, voyeurism, yadayadaya..., in short, anything which someone could conceivably want to keep "secret" which could be used as a lever to gain their cooperation.


----------



## TCBF

- Too bad they never got around to asking about kids being kept in the attic at CFB Chatham.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> That is so true.  If it was truly sexual assault then there should have been enough evidence to lay charges right away.  Was there a charge laid and the assault is just another example to make her point?  Who knows, I know I sure don't.



Are you in the same CF?

You mean to tell me that back in the day when it was  "fags or dyke's"  (Words used apparently BY the SIU) you don't think it's plausible that a woman suspected of being gay would brig up allegations of sexual harassment or assault and the CF would laugh and say ya okay we'll get on that!

Not really our place to judge wether she's 'greedy' or not according to how much money she's asking for IMO.  To me that's akin to criticizing soldiers with PTSD or severe wounds. "Man you only lost your leg! You can still walk with a crutch, why are you trying to get such a big pension? Greedy"


----------



## Slim

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> You are so right, I am quick to condemn.
> 
> Not for laying the law suit, but as I said before, for waiting so long and for asking for $1.5 Million.  If it meant that much why wait so long and why ask so much.  Even if she only got $1000 it would say yes you were right and we are sorry.  A $100,000 would do the same and not show greed.



Well Bud

I take exception to that line of thinking...As I said before, I had a friend, now dead, who tried to deal with being harrassed and couldn't. 

He DID get a pension, councilling and everything else that the CF could do...However it just wouldn't go away so he took himself out of the picture. 

He was a damn fine soldier and became a damn fine police officer after releasing from the CF...after doing 10 years and several tours...

But, according to you, it's his fault right?!

To my way of looking at it you need to rethink some stuff...

Slim


----------



## Harley Sailor

Slim said:
			
		

> Well Bud
> 
> I take exception to that line of thinking...As I said before, I had a friend, now dead, who tried to deal with being harrassed and couldn't.
> 
> He DID get a pension, councilling and everything else that the CF could do...However it just wouldn't go away so he took himself out of the picture.
> 
> He was a damn fine soldier and became a damn fine police officer after releasing from the CF...after doing 10 years and several tours...
> 
> But, according to you, it's his fault right?!
> 
> To my way of looking at it you need to rethink some stuff...
> 
> Slim



Well Slim you must have used the wrong quote..  I am I wrote better ones that you could have used to make your point.. The Quote you used was about money and by the sounds of it no amount of money would have helped your friend.. Would it have made a difference if the goverment gave him a million dollars, or even two?  That was, after all, my point, or did you miss that..


----------



## armyvern

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> Well Slim you must have used the wrong quote..  I am I wrote better ones that you could have used to make your point.. The Quote you used was about money and by the sounds of it no amount of money would have helped your friend.. Would it have made a difference if the goverment gave him a million dollars, or even two?  That was, after all, my point, or did you miss that..



Perhaps it may made squat of a difference to him, but I'm sure that it would have to the family who has suffered the greatest financially etc from his "personal" loss. This happens ALL the time. Get hit by a drunk driver? His insurance pays you out so that you/survivors can live. We call these people "victims".

In this case, all you seem to be doing is painting the CF as the "victim", not the woman who actually "lived it".

If her claims are bogus - the court judgement will decide that; likewise if she's determined to actually be the "victim." 

Until such time, I'm not willing to paint either side as the victim in this. Time will tell - as will the facts.


----------



## Harley Sailor

Maybe if I use another case as an example I can explain my point better.  The fire on our Submarine a few years ago also caused a lot of people a lot of mental problems.  How much did the government give them for thier pain and suffering? They averaged less then $1500 a month for PTSD.  Which means they will get less then a million over *50 years*.  The families of our fallen soldiers get less then $50,000 a year in pension, which means it will take more then 30 years for them to make $1.5 million.

IMO their losses are much worth and they will be getting a lot less.  Is that really fair?


----------



## Slim

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> The fire on our Submarine a few years ago also caused a lot of people a lot of mental problems.  How much did the government give them for their pain and suffering?



I know what you're trying to say...And you're probably right. Lt Saunder's family aside, the crew that suffered in that accident are probably not nearly as well compensated for their suffering, during and after that terrible ordeal.

No dispute;

However, I do believe that there is a difference in that the crew were performing their jobs at the time. No one expects accidents but they do happen, on land, at sea and in the air. 

I think the difference is that a case of sexual assault is outside the purview of a soldier/sailor/airman's sworn duties and therefore, in the eyes of all parties concerned, that much worse. 

The take on this incident that you hold is one of perspective. 10 years ago, while I was still serving I would probably have felt the same way you do about this....Time and distance have given me another perspective I guess. I no longer believe "Shut up and soldier on!" to be the answer. 

Peope can be irreparably damaged by events such as that one  and it's up to the individuals mettle whether they sink or swim. Councilling and compensation can help in overcoming such an event...Compensation is basically the admission that the entity that the abused served was wrong in not preventing, stopping or investigating the incident and acting accordingly within a reasonable amount of time.

My 2 pennies


----------



## gun runner

Maybe she didn't like the pensionable amount she was/is entitled to... IMHO that is it in a nutshell for me!! Ubique


----------



## armyvern

gun runner said:
			
		

> Maybe she didn't like the pensionable amount she was/is entitled to... IMHO that is it in a nutshell for me!! Ubique



Well, she also wouldn't be the first to sue DND or VAC for that.

There's a whole class action happening on that front right now ... troops & vets getting screwed on claw-backs ... 

Surely, you're not suggesting that the government would never screw over Joe & Jane Regularsoldier??

There wouldn't have been a requirement for an Ombudsman if that were the case.

I love how some of you are so quick to judge her guilty of something. Absolutely amazing --- the facts may make you look the fool when they do come out.


----------



## gun runner

The pensioned amount after retirement for the C.F. as a whole is a complete joke.. unless you retire flag rank. You all deserve alot more than what you will take in after deductions. That is fact not fiction. Ubique


----------



## lou-reed

Gun runner,



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> The pensioned amount after retirement for the C.F. as a whole is a complete joke.. unless you retire flag rank. You all deserve alot more than what you will take in after deductions. That is fact not fiction. Ubique



I will respectfully disagree with you.  I am a recent retiree with 20 years pensionable service.  I have no complaints with 40% of my best five (Capt 5)  Would I take more if I could?  Absolutely, but the fact is that the $1800+ I get a month is, in my opinion reasonable for 20 years of my service.  If I really felt that I deserved more I would have stayed in!  My pension is adequate for me to live on with some minor lifestyle changes.

Regarding the original subject - Let's not be too hasty in passing judgement without knowing all the facts.  PTSD and its related symptoms are all handled differently by everyone.  I know first hand about some of the underhanded tactics used by SIU back 20 years ago regarding gays and lesbians.  The problem is that now, due to the passage of time, records and witnesses may not be as reliable if they are still available.  Until we know all the facts we cannot prove or disprove any of the accusations.  We should let this woman have her day to present her side of what happened.


----------



## Slim

> We should let this woman have her day to present her side of what happened.



I agree...Let the woman have her day...Which, in all likelyhood will be difficult for her given the way that courts can be regarding this type of alleged act. 

However, at the end of it, it _MAY_ help her face down her demons...Something that my friend was never able to do.


----------



## Blackadder1916

In reviewing many of the posts in this thread one would get the impression that the complaintant is suing because of psychological trauma that resulted from sexual assault and harassment during her time in the service.  However, from reviewing the scant information in the few tiny news articles, there is no mention that this suit is about the psychological effects of her (mis)treatment in the CF.  Her primary claim (according to news reports) is that she was denied promotion due to her sexuality and because she reported the harassment.  While it may be very easy to make that leap of deduction and so colour her case (and this discussion), she, apparently, has not.  It is likely that few, if any, participating in this thread know this woman.  For all we know, she may be a tough, scrappy fighter who does not want to be labeled a "victim", but is simply exercising her legal rights to gain what she believes was illegally denied her.  Though I'm not a lawyer (spit), from looking at reports of similar cases the amount requested is not totally exorbitant.

During my career (particularly during the period when homosexuals weren't allowed) there were many (?) of that persuasion that most of us were aware of or at least highly suspected.  In a lot of cases nobody really cared about it or the individuals were of more senior rank and thus were insulated from punitive action (official or unofficial).  Action, however, was usually taken against those who did not "fit in" or whose sexual activities came to public light (Shelbourne and Valcartier being two of the more public incidents back in the dark ages).  It was more convenient to take action against homosexuals who didn't "fit in" because there was a CFAO that said they didn't fit in and administrative means to get rid of them if their sexual orientation could be proven.  The only ways their sexual orientation could be proven was for the individual to admit it, someone else to testify that they had a (homo)sexual encounter with them or to be caught "in flagrante delicto".   A lot of the time it was the unofficial method that convinced them to leave the military, sometimes with a little official unrecognition (wink, wink, nod, nod) that it was taking place.  These days, that would be called harassment and it wouldn't surprise me if such unofficial activities continued after 1992.  So if this was Mythbusters, I would say that her claim is "plausible".


----------



## Slim

Interesting insight into the situation...And the method that you described was certainly the one that the CF used to 'deal' with the problem children of that persuasion.

Whatever the woman (who is suing) is, she still deserves her day to speak.

It will be interesting to see what the results will be...

Cheers

Slim


----------



## petergoodman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or even just remember what the tolerance they call for REALLY means.....



What *exactly* does tolerance REALLY mean? We shouldn't allow ourselves to jump to irrational conclusions - as Hamilton PRide did, by assuming the worst stereotypes. Too easy. Toronto's parade was well-received so we can't use Hamilton as the rule.


----------



## petergoodman

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Having pride in one's sexual preference is a bit of an odd thing for me to comprehend (much as pride in one's race, religion, or whatever, but hey, live and let live, I suppose)



'Pride' in this context is often misinterpreted, especially by people who've never been forced to hide who they are in a dominant or hostile culture.  It's about standing up to be counted without fear, and taking control of your own life, no matter how the peanut gallery reacts. Blacks did it in the 60's and now they have Obama.  Social evolution and democratic progress takes courage as all soldiers can appreciate.

Marching shows inner strength and outer courage to risk everything by 'outing' yourself in a public forum.  

We have endless events, rituals and institutions that inherently condone hetero/sexual orientation -not preference- every day with weddings, dances, government forms, etc, so why get our backs up when the gays take over the streets for one day every year? As military folks supporting freedom and democracy, isn't it the duty of the military to support these principles for all, regardless of your personal partisan inclinations?  I hope we see CF soldiers in pride parades across the country in years to come to show the country and the world that we stand by the true ideals which we claim to defend.


----------



## petergoodman

FYI the Love Parade happens 2 weeks after the Berlin Gay Pride Parade every year!!  They have both - Pride is fundamentally political in nature - about rights and visibility.  Love Parade is by design Apolitical - it's only about the music!


----------



## norris

I was always taught that pride was a sin.


----------



## Edward Campbell

petergoodman said:
			
		

> What *exactly* does tolerance REALLY mean? We shouldn't allow ourselves to jump to irrational conclusions - as Hamilton PRide did, by assuming the worst stereotypes. Too easy. Toronto's parade was well-received so we can't use Hamilton as the rule.




Interesting question.

Put broadly, we *tolerate* that which we know or believe to be worthy of our *disapproval* but which, since it does not infringe our fundamental rights, ought not to be forbidden to others just because it offends our moral, religious or intellectual standards. Thus, I tolerate e.g. Brittney Spears even though she offends my moral, musical and intellectual standards - I don't think she should be hied off to a nunnery ... strike that, I *do* think she ought to be hied off to a nunnery, I just don't think it's proper to inflict her on any of them.

Equally, *I tolerate* public displays of homosexual 'pride' even though I find them to be in poor taste and unsuitable for children, adolescents, grown ups, pets and even civil servants. I also tolerate organized religion even though it offends intellectually - but I do like some of the music.

There is also the problem of each of us *knowing* or *believing* that something is wrong - and then deciding, or not, to *tolerate* it anyway. Who says we *know* the 'truth.' And who says that we should tolerate something that is really offensive? For many of us being tolerant is just easier that taking action against that which offends our sense of right and wrong. 

Finally: Tolerance is different from toleration; see here, and here, but that's another debate.


----------



## TCBF

petergoodman said:
			
		

> What *exactly* does tolerance REALLY mean? ...



- It means that we have to hire and promote people SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, not their ability and productivity, and nothing less will ever do.


----------



## Fusaki

> There is also the problem of each of us knowing or believing that something is wrong - and then deciding, or not, to tolerate it anyway. Who says we know the 'truth.' And who says that we should tolerate something that is really offensive? For many of us being tolerant is just easier that taking action against that which offends our sense of right and wrong.



Well, you gotta pick your battles, right?

Through democracy we give a little on some issues so that we can take what we need on issues we think are more important. You'll never find a politician that holds the exact same beliefs as yourself, so you vote for the guy you think is closest to what you want.  The rest you'll just have to tolerate until we find a better system or you run in an election yourself.

So you ask "who says?" I guess we do together, because in a democracy it just sort of sorts itself out into a compromise.


----------



## petergoodman

TCBF said:
			
		

> - It means that we have to hire and promote people SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, not their ability and productivity, and nothing less will ever do.


 Using your logic, one would have to assume that ONLY heterosexuals have 'ability and productivity'? I could easily show you endless examples to the contrary in politics, business, sports and military. Tolerance in action!!


----------



## petergoodman

norris said:
			
		

> I was always taught that pride was a sin.


 I was always taught that not all sins are created equal.  Can't soldiers be proud to serve in the military? Can't we be proud Canadians?


----------



## TCBF

petergoodman said:
			
		

> Using your logic, one would have to assume that ONLY heterosexuals have 'ability and productivity'? I could easily show you endless examples to the contrary in politics, business, sports and military. Tolerance in action!!



- My logic?  You read poorly, and express yourself offensively.   Try again.


----------



## Osotogari

An important issue here is when the uniform can be worn in public.  To me this issue goes beyond homosexual rights and the conflict that arises from tolerating the agenda of gay rights activists.  

It's with some dismay that I hear of CF members wearing their uniforms to a pride parade, but not out of my moral objections to the homosexual lifestyle, but rather with the same dismay I would read of someone wearing their uniform to any political rally, public protest, or other political event.   Can I wear my uniform to a pro-life demonstration?  How about to a rally against gun control?  A pro-Isreal demonstration?  I wouldn't have thought so, I was under the impression that you weren't supposed to wear a uniform in public unless you were on your way to or from work.   

The CF needs to appear to be above politics  I'm a bit peeved at the chain of command of the individuals involved allowing them to wear their uniforms to such an event in the first place, if such approval was granted, because out of either shortsightedness or fear, they've allowed the uniform and what it represents to be dragged into the political fray.  Now that it has, what's to stop someone from wearing their uniform to any event that they feel strongly about?


----------



## Fusaki

We wear our uniforms to hockey games, at exhibitions, and all sorts of other public events in order to cast the CF in a good light. Why not pride parades?



> It's with some dismay that I hear of CF members wearing their uniforms to a pride parade, but not out of my moral objections to the homosexual lifestyle, but rather with the same dismay I would read of someone wearing their uniform to any political rally, public protest, or other political event.



Gay pride isn't a political party, but thats not to say that homosexual issues arn't political. Just that the act of being gay and proud of it isn't political.

I just don't see what the big deal is. You can be gay in a CF parade, so why not CF in  gay parade? "Strong and Proud?" We're practically stealing each other's slogans anyways... We wouldn't even need to re-paint the recruiting bus...


----------



## Steel Badger

TCBF said:
			
		

> - It means that we have to hire and promote people SOLELY based on their sexual orientation, not their ability and productivity, and nothing less will ever do.



TCBF is referring to the hiring and promotion of people according to minority status ( orientation )rather than the individuals OWN merits for the job..... not making a blanket statement about the inability of people of certain sexual orientations to do said jobs...

The truth of the matter, is, as always, in the implementation; and so far the implementation of "inclusiveness" in the workplace HAS focussed on the orientation of the indiviual rather than any intrinsic merit they show as a person.... 
 PG, you have listed examples that you have; and I can do the same ( as can many others here) in regards to the APPLICATION of tolerance overlooking anything as petty as actual qualifications to do the job.

Mayhap thou should take thine axe from the grind stone and read TCBF's post again.

(Edited for spelling)


----------



## Osotogari

> the act of being gay and proud of it isn't political.



I agree, but in its nature a pride parade is a political event or there would be no speeches, no politician would attend, nor would there be any media coverage.  

It's not appropriate to wear the uniform to any political event.  If we can't comment on public policy while identifying ourselves as CF members, such as letters to the editor, then it means we can't participate in any political expression while in uniform.  

Again, if someone wants to march in or watch a gay pride parade for whatever the reason that's up to them, but their uniform should be left at home.


----------



## Greymatters

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> The truth of the matter, is, as always, in the implementation; and so far the implementation of "inclusiveness" in the workplace HAS focussed on the orientation of the indiviual rather than any intrinsic merit they show as a person....



Are you refering to the acceptance of persons who dont meet minimum standards in order to meet political direction from excutive levels?


----------



## Steel Badger

GM: Yes,   have to work on my bluntness i guess.


----------



## Greymatters

No need to sugar-coat things - might as well call a thingee a thingee...


----------



## Steel Badger

Sigh, sometimes the PC approach we are made to swallow by the OPS is hard to get rid of.......


----------



## davidsonr_91

I know that this is probably a touchy subject for most people but I would like to get the general feel for how gays are treated in the combat arms.  Has anyone got any stories of recruits that you have seen or personal stories about being gay in combat arms?  If someone comes out to their reg or section are they treated different?  Do you feel they are less of a person or less capable of doing the job?  What are people's issue with having gays in the military?  I know there is a no harassment policy in the CF but people including your CoC can find ways around that that are indirect to make your life miserable enough to want to release, is this a normal thing or am I just getting over anxious.

I am just wondering as I am going Combat arms and have a partner and would like to know what it's like before I go for training.  

Thanks for your time and responses.

 :camo:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Just saying.....

If you don't have anything to add for the above question, please do not post...


MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## Snaketnk

You'll probably be silently discriminated against by your peers. I know it's against CF policy and all that, but at least with the combat arms guys I know (and I like to think I know a huge number) they are NOT comfortable with a person of your orientation. Again, from my experience. 

I'm not trying to dissuade you, but expect a bit of a harder time and alienation from your peers. In fact, I hope you do join and start changing attitudes.


----------



## vonGarvin

davidsonr_91 said:
			
		

> I know that this is probably a touchy subject for most people but I would like to get the general feel for how gays are treated in the combat arms.  Has anyone got any stories of recruits that you have seen or personal stories about being gay in combat arms?  If someone comes out to their reg or section are they treated different?  Do you feel they are less of a person or less capable of doing the job?  What are people's issue with having gays in the military?  I know there is a no harassment policy in the CF but people including your CoC can find ways around that that are indirect to make your life miserable enough to want to release, is this a normal thing or am I just getting over anxious.
> 
> I am just wondering as I am going Combat arms and have a partner and would like to know what it's like before I go for training.
> 
> Thanks for your time and responses.
> 
> :camo:


Hi Davidson
I'll only answer questions that are related to "the system".  For any perception issues, I can only speak about one person's experiences: mine.

*Has anyone got any stories of recruits that you have seen or personal stories about being gay in combat arms?*
Yes.  I have seen gay soldiers in training and on operations.  They are a mixed bag of superb to average to sub-standard soldiers, like everybody else.

*If someone comes out to their reg or section are they treated different?*
Not really, no.  I mean, in most cases, the fact that person A or person B is gay is usually apparent.  In the cases in which an "outing" is a bit of a surprise, then, yeah, they are treated a bit differently.  Not worse, not better, just different.  And that's natural for humans.  When someone learns something, anything about someone, then the initial reactions are to be expected.  In the end, however, things very quickly revert to the status quo.

*Do you feel they are less of a person or less capable of doing the job? * 

I may sound like a poster-child for tolerance or acceptance, but a person's sexual orientation is not an issue, unless that person makes it an issue.  They are no less or more capable of doing a job be they gay, straight or otherwise.  

*I know there is a no harassment policy in the CF but people including your CoC can find ways around that that are indirect to make your life miserable enough to want to release, is this a normal thing or am I just getting over anxious.*

From my experience, you are getting over-anxious.  I am sure that there are horror stories out there about person A or person B feeling as though they are getting a raw deal because of their orientation, race, gender, or whatever other card they wish to play.  In my own experience, however, in cases in which people were given hard times (career-wise), it was because of faults in their performance, character or otherwise.  In short, it was about their job, and their inability to perform it to an acceptable standard.

I hope this helps

Techno.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, even though I am a lesbian (shhhhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone), I've never been treated differently and I am openly lesbian...so...


----------



## Scott

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, even though I am a lesbian (shhhhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone), I've never been treated differently and I am openly lesbian...so...



This is exactly the bullshit type comment that everyone was asked to refrain from making. Glad you read the second post in the thread.

Consider this your freebie.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What, is this "No Sense of Humour" on Army.ca day?


----------



## TimBit

Personnally, I have seen and or known a significant number of lesbians in the forces. Interestingly, I have not seen or known as many gay males, and I certainly have never seen any public display of affection b/w two males. That in itself might tell you something. That is my personal experience. That being said, good luck. I'm sure things will be fine.


----------



## Scott

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What, is this "No Sense of Humour" on Army.ca day?



Nope. It's no perpetuating ugly stereotypes day and it's actually meant to run ad infinitum.

Take a peek at the quote below. It was posted as the first reply in this thread, advice you chose to ignore. Your post adds nothing.



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Just saying.....
> 
> If you don't have anything to add for the above question, please do not post...
> 
> 
> MILNET.CA MENTOR



I am not entertaining any more questions about this.


----------



## Remius

I think it boils down to personal experience.  I've known both lesbians and gays in the combat arms.  Not a lot but a few.  Also a few who have family members that are homosexual.  I always found it funny that there was more discussion about suspected homosexuals than the ones that were known to be homosexual.  Some guys were just more comfortable knowing than guessing.  That being said I've also heard some pretty nasty homophobic stuff but no more than you would find on civy street.  Hopefully your experience wil be a positive one but i suspect that at some point in your career, you will face challenges.  But no more so than what some women, visible minorities and yes even the white anglo male will also face at times.


----------



## vonGarvin

If I may add to what I posted earlier.  You will indeed need thick skin to be in the army.  That applies to everyone: gay, straight, atheist, religious, white, black etc and so forth.
Some people may be taken aback by open signs of your homosexuality, such as a guy referring to his boyfriend, a woman referring to her wife, etc.  That's normal.  That does not mean that they hate you, will string you up, leave hate letters in your inbox, etc.  It's natural, because, the media notwithstanding, people are naturally xenophobic, and that includes to homosexuals.  My word of advice is this: don't let it get you down and do NOT take it personally.  People will refer to things as being "gay", and guys may call each other "homos".  It's not a slight against you anymore than it's a slight against me when people utter "Jesus Christ!" when they hammer their fingers instead of the nail. 

To put that last part in perspective, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  Just so you know, there are people of all stripes, shapes, etc in the military.  But there is a reason we all wear the same uniform: to minimise our differences and try to create a homogeneous group.  Just as I don't go around proclaiming the virtues of Catholicism, I simply practice in private, except sundays, when I attend mass.  

Another poster mentioned something about PDA: Public Displays of Affection.  Now, gay, straight, polygamist or otherwise, it's fairly taboo to do so in uniform.  Not entirely verboten, as such (eg: the Base Commander kissing his wife goodbye as she drops him off in the morning), but in general, when in uniform, we are supposed to act as Eunuchs, I suppose.  And yes, I'll freely admit that seeing two guys kissing may turn me off in many ways; however, that in no way would change how I would treat a member of my team who were homosexual.  Having said that, however, once any person joins a "clan" within the military, they will be subjected to insults and jibes.  This is not harrassment, this is just the opposite.  I have been picked on for being a holy roller, for having a big nose, for all sorts of stuff.  But in the end, it is how we interact.  It may seem foreign, in bad taste, or even bordering on harrassment by outsiders, but to us, the members of a "clan" within the military, it's how we bond.

In the end, any and all institutional discrimination is naturally forbidden.  That's not to say that it doesn't occur: it does.  But that's why we have a National Defence Act, because it is, simply put, illegal.  And those who are convicted of it face hefty penalties.  I'm certain that it occurs just as it does in every other institution within our society.  In part, it's part of being human, I suppose.  So, my advice to you is this: forewarning is fairwarning: you will face barbs and some comments may come off as xenophobic to homosexuals.  All your peers will care about is such things as:
Is the guy a good egg?
Can he do his job?
Does he have my back?

If the answer is yes, then they could care less if you are gay, straight, aboriginal, or anything else for that matter.  And if you feel that the barbs are coming on too strongly, then give it back.  If you feel offended that guys are talking about sexual conquests on the weekend, well, then start talking about yours.  You will face a steep road ahead, just as you would anywhere else, but in the end, if they answer "yes" to the three questions above, then it's all gravy.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Cat

My thoughts in general is that as long as you're not hitting on me, we're good and that goes for all genders. I know when I was in St Jean there was a bit of drama going on about the whole gay/straight/bi/purple with pink polkadots etc. It seems to me that the easiest way to avoid drama (irregardless of your gender or sexual orientation) is not to bring it to the office, don't get involved with those in your platoon/squad/section and unless you run into them at the club after hours, leave them alone no matter how cute you think they are.

Hitting on the guy/girl next to you in a foxhole is not a great way to build teamwork...just saying. Also if you feel at anypoint that you are being discriminated against for any reason(short of being a complete pump) there are channels to go through to ensure that it is dealt with quickly and professionally.


----------



## davidsonr_91

I just want to thank everyone who was able to provide feedback on this topic it's some great advice.


----------



## CollinsRN

I regret that this must be me first post, but this topic is near to me. I am an active member of the LBGT resource center at Memorial University and an infantry soldier service with the 1st Batallion Royal Newfoundland Regiment. I make little effort to hide my sexual orientation (bisexual), but I do not bring it up unless it is somehow relevent, such as talking about past relationships.

I fully understood joining the military would require thick skin. However, I was to believe there was a harrassment policy protecting members from discrimination or biggotry based on sexual orientation among other things, and I have felt that as a non-heterosexual man, this policy (at least the sexual orientation part) feels like posturing and a lot of talk, rather than something that is taken seriously.

I unfortunately encountered an incident on a live fire range where an individual was, perhaps in his highschool mentality, doing foolish stuff such as pasting nazi symbology on the targets. I politely asked him to give it up, and was asked if I was Jewish. I told him that it wasn't just Jews that were exterminated, but a number of other groups such as homosexuals. Upon mention of homosexuals, the individual said, 'Well, they should be shot.' After a verbal exchange where I warned him not to make such comments, he was up in my face spouting that same line repeatedly. Given that we were on a live fire range, I was quite shaken, and a MCpl removed me from training for a portion of that day.

When the issue was raised to the Sergeant Major, and passed up the chain of command, the soldier was asked to make an apology. While I felt such punishment was completely unfitting for such a comment when I'm told there's a 'zero tolerance' policy, I got the impression that the Sergeant Major wanted me to drop it. Not wanting to hurt the cohesion of my course or attract anymore hate to myself, I dropped the issue. I considered it would be better off for the morale of all involved, especially considering it would make me some enemies from his unit I imagined. I think this is the start of me taking this stuff more seriously and being more affected by it.

Since then, the most I've dealt with is the rampant use of the words 'gay' and 'fag' prominent in everyday military life. Used to be it didn't bother me, because I guess I had faith that people didn't really mean it. In most cases, this is certainly true, as we're talkin about highschool kids whom it belongs just part of their vocabulary.  But at its core, use of such words is rooted in hate, or at least the idea that being gay is wrong. Hearing it the odd time would hardly bother me, but I hear it dozens of times a day, every day, and noone bats an eyelash. Substitute this case for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion, and I feel individuals would be so quick to be brought up on charge parade it would make their head spin.

I hardly believe my entire experience in the Canadian Forces has been a negative one. In fact, I will say the vast majority, at least on my courses, have been very understanding and considerate. My home unit is also amazingly good for it, however, I have come to hate the time I spend in Gagetown, specifically in the D-lines because of the rampant abuse of such language. I honestly do not feel like enough is being done to stamp such sentiments out, specifically among the combat arms trades, and have been considering release or trade transfer. I have tolerated it for over 3 years, but hearing people called 'faggots' and 'stop being gay' non stop while away it has slowly eroded away my morale and enjoyment of the military experience.

It may be that most of you will think I'm being too sensitive or that I don't have a thick skin, but I do not think that's the case. Just ask yourself if you would consider it unreasonable for a member of a visible minority to be bothered by racist comments over such a period of time.


----------



## aesop081

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> I dropped the issue.



That is a decision you made so live with it. You had options to deal with this, all well within CF policy. You were taught these during basic training. Situations like yours are to be resolved at the lowest level possible but If you were not happy with the resolution, you should have pursued it further.


----------



## OldSolduer

Interesting post Collins.

1. The soldier pasting nazi symbols on the target should have been stopped and disciplined by the MCpl, before you brought it to light.  You should not have been removed from trg. 

2. Out west here, even our openly homosexual male soldiers use the words "gay" and "fag". We all do. No one is offended.


----------



## vonGarvin

Hi CollinsRN
It's a shame that the person putting the nazi symbology up weren't reminded of the 40000 or so Canadians who died fighting nazism.  (Please note, I deliberately do not capitalise "nazi").  Given from what you posted (again, just one side, but I accept your version), it sounds as though that this member would have picked on you
for any reason, not just your sexual preference.  Just one point about your post here:


> But at its core, use of such words is rooted in hate, or at least the idea that being gay is wrong.


I would offer that the use of such words is rooted in much more than that. Ignorance may be one.  Popular culture, the "idea" of the male especially within the military culture, and in many cases, upbringing.  Not to imply that people are taught to refer to homosexuals as "faggots" or whatever, but humans are, as I stated before, xenophobic by  nature. It served us well as we evolved, and in our society known as "Human Kind" dating back thousands of years, there have indeed been many societal views on homosexuality; however, nothing like society is like today.

Anyway, I also like to think that people are essentially jerks as well.  Especially to outsiders.  And "outside" can refer to anything from skin colour, hair colour (think "Kick a Ginger Day"), to accent to anything.  

I'm sorry to hear that your D-Line experience has been that bad.  I can offer no advice, because I have no idea how you feel.  Keep your chin up, I suppose.


----------



## CollinsRN

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That is a decision you made so live with it. You had options to deal with this, all well within CF policy. You were taught these during basic training. Situations like yours are to be resolved at the lowest level possible but If you were not happy with the resolution, you should have pursued it further.



While I understand your point, as a private recruit, I felt intimidated by the idea of telling a Sergeant Major that I thought it was completely unnacceptable and that an apology hardly makes up for someone telling me I should be shot to my face, on a range. Combine that with the fact that my course was essentially divided down the middle between persons from my unit, and persons from his unit, I had reason to believe that any action would ultimately come back to bite me. I honestly do not mean to be snarky at all, but when a sergeant major and half of your coursemates are essentially telling you to drop it and you have less than half a year in, you do.

But you're right, it was my decision. I am living with it. Do I regret it? Not really, that soldier could have smartened up and become a decent member. In fact, I've talked to him since without much of a problem. However, I wasn't exactly made to feel like the harrassment policy mattered. I have a feeling that had it been someone that said the 'n' word and claimed african Canadians should be shot, it surely would not have stopped without a charge.



			
				Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Interesting post Collins.
> 
> 1. The soldier pasting nazi symbols on the target should have been stopped and disciplined by the MCpl, before you brought it to light.  You should not have been removed from trg.
> 
> 2. Out west here, even our openly homosexual male soldiers use the words "gay" and "fag". We all do. No one is offended.



Yes to the first point. As for the second, I don't think that's a fair excuse, and I'll reference the infamous 'n' word subject again. Yes, you may get away with it with your close friends, but as a general rule until you have that level of comfort with an individual it's pretty unacceptable to assume it's ok. It's used perjoratively ammong a lot of my gay friends back home, as I've seen this, but you can hardly believe that a gay person saying 'fag' means it in any discriminatory manner. Maybe the gay guys who think it's completely acceptable are naive enough to think that there is no root problem with it. They don't realize they reinforce discrimination by using such a word as well. When you've grown up in a small community dominated by small minded people however, and have faced threats of being kicked out of your house and outright discrimination from family as well as peers, it digs a lot deeper and yes, makes me quite a bit more defensive on the issue.



> I would offer that the use of such words is rooted in much more than that. Ignorance may be one.  Popular culture, the "idea" of the male especially within the military culture, and in many cases, upbringing.



When you trace it back to it's roots, it all comes back to the main idea that being homosexual is wrong. Yes, I agree, human nature is somewhat disgusting in that we tend to be quite on the xenophobic side. I am far from perfect myself, such as using the word retard which a fellow soldier pointed out to me when discussing the issue of discriminatory language. Thing is, I'm actively working on it, because he's right, I don't believe it's acceptable. It took a long time to stamp out usage of racial epithets, for sure. It's hardly completely gone, but it's far better. I would like the same to happen with 'fag' and 'gay' used to mean 'stupid', 'weak', 'lame', etc.

As I said, I brush most things off. For the most part, I fully realize that everyone gets poked fun at in the military, and you just accept it and think up a comeback to yourself in a battle of wits. But it's the sheer volume and constant usage that has wore away on me over the period of my career in the reserves.

Ironically enough, I am completely for free speech and do not believe in speech codes for the public whatsoever. I can choose who I associate with on the civillian side of the world, and if they offend me, I can say my piece and leave. I have no choice of who I work with, however.

I'd also like to reiterate, however, that most of my experience in the military has been wholly positive, and I've done my damndest to put my head down and keep on soldiering on. I would not advise against my gay friends joining the military, but I would warn them what to expect.


----------



## vonGarvin

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> When you trace it back to it's roots, it all comes back to the main idea that being homosexual is wrong. Yes, I agree, human nature is somewhat disgusting in that we tend to be quite on the xenophobic side.


Just in the interest of accuracy, I placed on judgement on humans being xenophobic.  It's natural.  I don't think it's disgusting at all.  It is just who we are and how we are, in general.

And, in the interest of free speech, I personally am disgusted by images of homosexuality.  Having said that, and to put it into perspective, I am also disgusted by images of unattractive heterosexuality.  (Think "obese people having intercourse")  Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it.  When all is said and done, I couldn't give a flying f**k what a person's sexual orientation is.  If that person is a soldier, and that person _can _ soldier, then that's all that matters: gay, straight or otherwise.

Anyway, as stated, don't lose faith.  Just remember that Xenophobia fades when one is no longer "alien".  

EDIT TO ADD FOR CLARITY:  Just because I find something disgusting doesn't make it anyone's issue but my own.  If I turn on the TV and there is a show about Dicso or whatever else I find "disgusting", I'll just change the channel, etc.


----------



## armyvern

davidsonr_91 said:
			
		

> I just want to thank everyone who was able to provide feedback on this topic it's some great advice.



When you do (rarely) run into the occasional homophobe who feels need to make mention of something such as:

"I don't need _your_ type here watching me shower or hitting on me." Just respond with a loud and proud "Don't fucking flatter yourself."

Seems to me, it works - especially if his/her buddies happen to be standing around.    That's the response that I give 'em when I hear chatter & it shuts them up _real_ fast.


----------



## vonGarvin

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> When you do (rarely) run into the occasional homophobe who feels need to make mention of something such as:
> 
> "I don't need _your_ type here watching me shower or hitting on me." Just respond with a loud and proud "Don't fucking flatter yourself."
> 
> Seems to me, it works - especially if his/her buddies happen to be standing around.    That's the response that I give 'em when I hear chatter & it shuts them up _real_ fast.


Best.  Post.  Ever!


----------



## Kat Stevens

I heard one once that went something like "Don't worry, you couldn't get hit on in a Russian bath house with a 5 gallon gerry can of vodka on your back."


----------



## Fusaki

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> Since then, the most I've dealt with is the rampant use of the words 'gay' and 'fag' prominent in everyday military life. Used to be it didn't bother me, because I guess I had faith that people didn't really mean it. In most cases, this is certainly true, as we're talkin about highschool kids whom it belongs just part of their vocabulary.  But at its core, use of such words is rooted in hate, or at least the idea that being gay is wrong. Hearing it the odd time would hardly bother me, but I hear it dozens of times a day, every day, and noone bats an eyelash. Substitute this case for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion, and I feel individuals would be so quick to be brought up on charge parade it would make their head spin.



Up until recently, I've been one of those guys you're talking about.  To yourself, and to those who I've insulted and discriminated against, I am truly sorry.

Up until recently, words like gay, fag, and homo had been staples of my vocabulary.  I have homosexual friends around whom I'd try and tone it down and I've never used that kind of language with any sort of malice towards anyone in the LGBT community.  Around army guys though, it has been common for me to throw around those discriminatory slurs any time I was at a loss for words to describe something or someone I didn't like.

I've since realized that I shouldn't say what I don't mean.  I shouldn't have to watch my language around my gay friends for fear of insulting them, and I shouldn't be perpetuating hate and discrimination against people who just don't deserve it.

If someone were to go around my unit calling black guys _niggers_, no one would suggest that the the victims should grow some thicker skin.  A simple apology would not be seen as sufficient punishment.  If a new guy Pte were called a _nigger_, but kept his mouth shut in an effort to be the "grey man" on course, no one would say to him afterwords "you've made your decision, so live with it."  Both legally and morally, this is no different.

CollinsRN, keep on fighting the good fight.  Understand that sometimes the situation is best diffused in a manner Vern mentioned above.  Recognize though, that someday you may need to handle discrimination through official means.  In the mean time, you should strive to be the most competent and motivated soldier you know.  The best thing you can do for the LGBT community within the Canadian Forces is to be one of the top soldiers in your unit.  People who were originally unsure about serving with bisexual members should look to _you first_ as the guy who will bring the team through the toughest of situations.

Good luck.


----------



## CollinsRN

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Up until recently, words like gay, fag, and homo had been staples of my vocabulary.  I have homosexual friends around whom I'd try and tone it down and I've never used that kind of language with any sort of malice towards anyone in the LGBT community.  Around army guys though, it has been common for me to throw around those discriminatory slurs any time I was at a loss for words to describe something or someone I didn't like.



Thanks, that's all any reasonable person could hope to ask. I can't demand the army turn on its head for my sake, and it would be completely unrealistic of me to expect things to be perfect immediately. The environment is far more welcoming than it used to be, and if asked, most soldiers I've met will reassure you there is no real intent behind it. Just as thinking affects language, however, language in term affects thinking; hearing the use of 'fag' and 'gay' to mean 'stupid' or 'lame' will ultimately internalize such ideas about queer-folk (whether they be gay, bisexual, transgender, or anywhere along the continuum), and reinforces a culture and attitude which causes much hardship and discrimination. However, every little effort is appreciated, and I thank you and all those like you.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Wonderbread - thanks for making me take a long hard and uncomfortable look at myself.  I too have many friends in the LBGT community, some of whom are serving members, and some of whom are former comrades in arms, and like you, I am careful to moderate my language tics (and that is often what they are) around them.  Sadly, I am not as circumspect in general at work.  I will fix that.

CollinsRN - I admire your courage and your forthrightness.  Soldier on.

Dave


----------



## Jarnhamar

Scott said:
			
		

> Nope. It's no perpetuating ugly stereotypes day and it's actually meant to run ad infinitum.
> 
> Take a peek at the quote below. It was posted as the first reply in this thread, advice you chose to ignore. Your post adds nothing.
> 
> I am not entertaining any more questions about this.



It's also called using humor to bridge a gap.

davidsonr_91, you'll notice that even when someone is uncomfortable with homosexuals in the military they will try and find ways around it.  A sense of humor and bad jokes is often the first step. It's someone testing the waters and getting comfortable with the whole thing.  (Not suggesting this is what EITS was doing, I have a feeling he was making the common straight male "I'm a lesbian I love women too" joke).

You'll probably get made fun of and picked on, you should be concerned if you don't.  The Jewish guy is going to face Jewish jokes. Indians will get picked on for being Indians. Fat guys for being fat,  dumb people for being dumb. You're gay guess what you'll be picked on for?
Most of the jokes will be harmless, probably some tasteless. But if someone starts giving as good as he's getting ( ha ) guys will respect that and jokes aside anyone from "outside" who tries to screw with him are gonna have a dozen dudes ready to rip people apart defending the guy.
Young guys will have a big problem with it, they'll feel like it's taking away from their manhood alphamaleness if they don't make a big stink about it. 
The older wiser guys will use your sexual orientation to get chicks cause we all know gay men drop a woman's guard faster than a 6 pack of Smirnoff ice.

I'm like Wonderbred.  Gay was a big part of my vocabulary and I try and tone it down. My favorite tactic in the past has been to take the most homophobic acting guy and when I'm in a group, comment that something is gay and then look at him directly,  and say "Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, or gays in the military..." then look away as everyone else looks at him wondering.


----------



## Scott

Your taking that back and forth out of context. This thread has been merged with old ones. Back when I made my comment it was because caution had been given to all to keep it clean and serious and then that first post came


----------



## Danjanou

Interesting discussion.

One point that's been hinted at a lot here is that attitudes and standards change. As one of the old breed dinosaurs, I remember a time when acceptance and tolerance for LGBT members were far from the norm and both official discrimination and barrack room vigilantism were. That was wrong, and we moved forward as we should have and quite fast in the past 2 decades especially for such a conservative and as noted xenophobic organization. Some of us, especially older members haven't moved as past. I don't excuse your CSM, ( or at least your perceptions of his actions), however maybe I can understand why.

Several have also touched on Troopie humour a lot here too. Yeah sometimes "gay" jokes could be seen as offensive as would any specific ethnic type as the Viking and other have put it, but they happen. Question Collin 1st Bn still sit around and tell Newfy jokes , or "Baymen/Townie" jokes in the mess? What happens if some poor sod from the RNBR or WNSR is caught telling one? Troopie humour is often ( almost always) black and inappropriate, however it’s a tool that we sometimes use to get us through the bad patches.


----------



## 2010newbie

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> I'm like Wonderbred.  Gay was a big part of my vocabulary and I try and tone it down.



Ditto for me. I was living in an apartment building years ago and there was a lesbian couple that I became good friends with. I used the word "gay" a lot to describe things I disliked. Like, "That's a pretty gay shirt" or "That song was gay". Everytime I said it around them their response was -  "Do you mean "gay" as in homosexual or as in stupid?". I would hang my head and utter "Stupid......". It didn't take long for me to stop using it in that fashion.


----------



## CollinsRN

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Interesting discussion.
> 
> One point that's been hinted at a lot here is that attitudes and standards change. As one of the old breed dinosaurs, I remember a time when acceptance and tolerance for LGBT members were far from the norm and both official discrimination and barrack room vigilantism were. That was wrong, and we moved forward as we should have and quite fast in the past 2 decades especially for such a conservative and as noted xenophobic organization. Some of us, especially older members haven't moved as past. I don't excuse your CSM, ( or at least your perceptions of his actions), however maybe I can understand why.
> 
> Several have also touched on Troopie humour a lot here too. Yeah sometimes "gay" jokes could be seen as offensive as would any specific ethnic type as the Viking and other have put it, but they happen. Question Collin 1st Bn still sit around and tell Newfy jokes , or "Baymen/Townie" jokes in the mess? What happens if some poor sod from the RNBR or WNSR is caught telling one? Troopie humour is often ( almost always) black and inappropriate, however it’s a tool that we sometimes use to get us through the bad patches.



I want to pitch in and say it is not the older folks that have been bad. While I don't associate much with the commissioned ranks, I've never heard a peep from them on the subject, and Master Corporals and above have never really caused much of a problem, even when associating with them on staff. It is the 18-24 year old private/corporals that have historically been the worst.

Hearing a Newfy joke now and then wouldn't bother me. Even hearing a gay joke now and then wouldn't even get under my skin. In fact, my favourite show in the world is South Park, which I've never been offended by, so that should tell you about my tolerance of these things in general.

 It is the constant barrage of literally hearing 'That's gay', 'stop being a fag', with no humourous connotation even attached that bothers me. There's no humour in it, it's an insult, plain and simple. They are not saying it with any semblance of humour whatsoever, and more than a couple of them say it with the frequency of a crusty old sergeant major saying 'frig'. And no, I am not exagerating in the least.

I can take playful jabs and insults. This is nothing of the sort.


----------



## GAP

Are you going to correct all the 14 & 15 year olds who think it's grown up and cool to constantly spit and use the f word as often as possible....because that's the context the young fellows you are talking about are doing....the words gay, fag, etc. are not being used in context, mean no disrepute to any particular person, it's part of their lexicon.....teaching them the difference is why you don't see (not entirely) MCpl's, etc. use them.


----------



## CollinsRN

GAP said:
			
		

> Are you going to correct all the 14 & 15 year olds who think it's grown up and cool to constantly spit and use the f word as often as possible....because that's the context the young fellows you are talking about are doing....the words gay, fag, etc. are not being used in context, mean no disrepute to any particular person, it's part of their lexicon.....teaching them the difference is why you don't see (not entirely) MCpl's, etc. use them.



Yes, it's my intention that in the years to come, we'll eliminate these words from the regular lexicon of all people, or at least reduce it to the point where it's of questionable character to use it. Remember, there was once a time when the same could be said about the 'n' word, but through education and social momentum, racism has been reduced, even down to the level of 14 and 15 year olds.

Is there any reason I shouldn't expect that the same can happen for discrimination against homosexuals? Like I said, I acknowledge things won't change instantly, and appreciate that it's leaps and bounds ahead of where we were. In the meantime, it's still too much for me on a personal level. It's a hostile work environment, and unfortunately if it takes a release from the CF to get away from it, then I have to make that choice. It's for my own psychological well being, a personal choice, and not a matter of me being a whiney kid throwing a tantrum or anything. If that was the case, I'd be threatening all these soldiers to bring them up on charges.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Scott said:
			
		

> Your taking that back and forth out of context. This thread has been merged with old ones. Back when I made my comment it was because caution had been given to all to keep it clean and serious and then that first post came



sorry bro, you're right


----------



## vonGarvin

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> if it takes a release from the CF to get away from it, then I have to make that choice.


You better find an island somewhere then, because it's not just the CF.  And remember, use of certain words (eg: speaking) should not be confused with xenophobia directed at homosexuals.


(PS: I use "xenophobia", which means "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign".  It comes from the greek works "xenos" for foreign or strange and "phobia" for fear.  I take it that "phobia" is usually an irrational fear.  Anyway, I do not use that product word of the so-called "gay rights" movement, "homophobia", which literally means "fear and hatread of things that are the same", where "homo" means "same" and phobia has already been explained.)

So, my only advice is to suck it up.  As a practicing Roman Catholic I too have to deal with shit all the time, from the "all priests are pedos" jokes to inferences that I practice some sort of lost art of voodoo.  Hey, it's all good.  In the end, let people judge you for your actions, and if they cannot accept the differences you have from them, no matter what those differences are, well, screw them.  Again, in our far from perfect human society, one can always hope for progress, but unfortunately, it's not always that easy.  

I wish you all the best!


----------



## Jarnhamar

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> , and unfortunately if it takes a release from the CF to get away from it, then I have to make that choice. It's for my own psychological well being,



I suggest you never go on youtube then...


----------



## CollinsRN

I'm hardly forced to associate with any of these people, except at work. In fact, I rarely hear anyone in my extended friend circle on civilian side talk like this, nor is it nearly as bad in general on the civilian side from my personal experience, probably owing to the fact that I typically associate with people more my own age (22). It is damn rare for me to run into people who will casually be tossing around 'gay' and 'fag'. Truth be told, it's not even a common thing at my home unit, but Gagetown is miserable for it.

Youtube comments, however, are psychologically damaging for their sheer stupidity alone D:


----------



## Kat Stevens

Try spending 23 years being called a shit eater at least once every day.


----------



## FastEddy

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Interesting post Collins.
> 
> 1. The soldier pasting nazi symbols on the target should have been stopped and disciplined by the MCpl, before you brought it to light.  You should not have been removed from trg.
> 
> 2. Out west here, even our openly homosexual male soldiers use the words "gay" and "fag". We all do. No one is offended.





Yes indeed, very interesting, Had that Soldier drawn a Caricature of Bin Ladin, would that have offended anyone or Jihad Jihad offended any Muslin's who might have been there. As for the Nazi Symbols I don't think that Soldier was  directing their use towards personal of the Jewish Faith.
More than likely to improve the aim of shooters at a Hated Past Enemy.

If the NCO i/c the Butts were to act on anything, it would have been, DO NOT MARK ANYTHING ON THE TARGETS.

Taken into account that "CollinsRN" is bias in that incident, he should not have raised or started a confrontation. If he hadn't learned then or by now, WO's/MWO's are always right !.

Out West, I could really run with this one, but I better not.

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy

Quote from: CollinsRN on Yesterday at 16:53:11
if it takes a release from the CF to get away from it, then I have to make that choice.


If that would be your decision, then I suggest you might consider moving to SanFrancisco.

There you might find your Life Style less subject to criticism or the subject of concern.

Cheers.


----------



## CollinsRN

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Yes indeed, very interesting, Had that Soldier drawn a Caricature of Bin Ladin, would that have offended anyone or Jihad Jihad offended any Muslin's who might have been there. As for the Nazi Symbols I don't think that Soldier was  directing their use towards personal of the Jewish Faith.
> More than likely to improve the aim of shooters at a Hated Past Enemy.
> 
> If the NCO i/c the Butts were to act on anything, it would have been, DO NOT MARK ANYTHING ON THE TARGETS.
> 
> Taken into account that "CollinsRN" is bias in that incident, he should not have raised or started a confrontation. If he hadn't learned then or by now, WO's/MWO's are always right !.



That's a pretty false analogy, really, and it's not like it's the first time he had done something stupid like that or it was only on the targets and not over the back walls of the butts as well. Additionally, I told him quite calmly to cut it out a few times, and to yes, stop marking up the damn targets. It was after many repeated attempts to address the issue calmly that it god raised to the point where he was saying 'gays should be shot'.

Would you be saying the same thing if it was a Jewish person who said they just didn't appreciate seeing Nazi symbology?



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> Out West, I could really run with this one, but I better not.





> If that would be your decision, then I suggest you might consider moving to SanFrancisco.
> 
> There you might find your Life Style less subject to criticism or the subject of concern.
> 
> Cheers.



Really? Way to subtly say 'I'd say something discriminatory but I better not'. Also, I expect the 'If you don't like it then just giiiiit out' attitude from Americans in the south, but not Canadians. My 'life style' shouldn't be subject to discrimination and criticism at the workplace, especially in a military where the members swore a damn oath to protect the rights of all Canadians, including LBGT persons. I am not in the wrong here and should not have to go anywhere. I don't 'make it' anyone else's business. In fact, I specifically don't talk about my relationship history and tend to hide it for the most part, and that reflects a problem in my eyes.

You know what I'll be doing if and when I get out? I already volunteer at an LBGT center and am beginning to volunteer at Planned Parenthood in the fall, and I'll be putting my ass to use trying to better the conditions of gays and lesbians in this country, specifically at a high school level. Hopefully a change in sentiments at a younger age will filter through and improve the environment for future service members too. I appreciate what the military fights for, but I just think I can do more use for Canada and its citizens fighting a different battle. That is all. I'm not turning tail and running altogether, I'm fighting a different battle in a different way. But I expect activism might not be looked fondly on by many on this forums.


----------



## aesop081

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> and that reflects a problem in my eyes.



So dont hide it. I flew with a navigator who was openly gay. The guy didnt encounter any problems and even brought his partner to squadron family day. Gay jokes went around, he made jokes about straight people...we all got a good laugh, himself included.

You just want to play victim......


----------



## GAP

> You just want to play victim......



It's sure beginning to sound that way....


----------



## CollinsRN

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So dont hide it. I flew with a navigator who was openly gay. The guy didnt encounter any problems and even brought his partner to squadron family day. Gay jokes went around, he made jokes about straight people...we all got a good laugh, himself included.
> 
> You just want to play victim......



Did I say I had a problem with jokes?... Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at gays hundreds of times a day.

If that is the opinion though, I'll shut up about it, and just quietly deal with it in my own way.


----------



## aesop081

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at gays hundreds of times a day.



"yeah that flight/mission/course was pretty gay".........is not an insult towards gay people.

Like i said. You didnt want to use established policies to deal with a serious incident, You just want to be a victim.


----------



## George Wallace

CollinsRN said:
			
		

> Did I say I had a problem with jokes?... Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at gays hundreds of times a day.
> 
> If that is the opinion though, I'll shut up about it, and just quietly deal with it in my own way.



Can I paraphrase you.........I will anyway.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Newfs hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Blacks hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Priests hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Ukrainians hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at blondes hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Wops hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at farmers hundreds of times a day.

Again, jokes are a far cry different than hearing insults tossed around at Cops hundreds of times a day.

We can go on forever, and the point will still be the same.  There are many things that people intentionally or unintnentially say or do that will offend someone.  If it is intentional and/or malicious, there are means to report it.


----------



## aesop081

George, i'm offended that you did not mention us frogs........and spicks too.


----------



## vonGarvin

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> George, i'm offended that you did not mention us frogs........and spicks too.


You think you have it bad?  Try being Irish!  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Like i said. You didnt want to use established policies to deal with a serious incident, You just want to be a victim.



Let's not omit the point that those immediate supervisors who should have counseled on those policies failed to do so, and took actions that may be interpreted as attempts to neutralize his complaint.  They failed to provide the support and guidance they should have to resolve the issue.  He did take the necessary first actions; i.e., request that the actions be stopped and identify them to his superiors. 



			
				CollinsRN said:
			
		

> Given that we were on a live fire range, I was quite shaken, and *a MCpl removed me from training for a portion of that day.*



Note that he was removed, not the soldier committing the actions which caused offense.



			
				CollinsRN said:
			
		

> When the issue was raised to the Sergeant Major, and passed up the chain of command, the soldier was asked to make an apology. While I felt such punishment was completely unfitting for such a comment when I'm told there's a 'zero tolerance' policy, *I got the impression that the Sergeant Major wanted me to drop it.*



If an initial attempt at "alternate dispute resolution" is not found to be acceptable, it is up to the chain of command to ensure further appropriate actions are taken.  From the information we have, that does not appear to have been done, and "growing a thicker skin" is not the solution.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Collins you never mentioned that it was on the walls and other places as well. I found it weird that someone would be bothered by _shooting at_ a target with the Nazi crap on it.  I guess someone could be offended that the swastika was actually used... I guess you gotta pick and choose your battles.

Private recruits are quite often, well, pretty stupid.  Only steers and queers are from Texas and your safety is your trigger finger. Why? TOO MUCH Full Metal Jacket and Black Hawk Down.  Private recruits talk because they think they need to say something.

If someone gets in your face and starts intimidating you with his gays should be shot bullshit remind him that gay Canadian soldiers are buried all over Europe and some of them probably died in Afghanistan too. If that doesn't stop him then
a. just bring it up your chain of command
b. smash him in the face
c. back down ignore it and let him get away with it. Maybe he'll get bored of it maybe not.

You're talking about different options "if and when you get out". The reserves are not a full time career like it is in the regular force. You can do all the stuff you mentioned while still being in the reserves.

Bottom line is stuff like "that's gay" gets used all over the military. Is it over used? Yes. Are people going to be offended? Yes. Is stopping it going to be like trying to nail tooth paste to the wall? yes.
In the case of a stupid private recruit trying to impress people spouting off, sort him out through the system.  You're going to get made fun of, you're feelings are gonna get hurt and you're gonna get banged up.  The army WILL break your body, you can't help that. Wether it breaks your spirit or not though is up to you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You think you have it bad?  Try being Irish!  ;D



My better half is Irish-french.  I've actually been brought to the hospital in a whaaaambulance and recieved stitches when I got a little out of line.


----------



## aesop081

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Let's not omit the point that those immediate supervisors who should have counseled on those policies failed to do so, and took actions that may be interpreted as attempts to neutralize his complaint.  They failed to provide the support and guidance they should have to resolve the issue.  He did take the necessary first actions; i.e., request that the actions be stopped and identify them to his superiors.



The member himself has been trained on CF policies and actions to take. He was thus aware of them and chose not to pursue them.





> If an initial attempt at "alternate dispute resolution" is not found to be acceptable, it is up to the chain of command to ensure further appropriate actions are taken.



The member himself could have gone straight to his unit HA for further action. If the member did not want to do that, CF harassment policy offers several other avenues for resolution.

Again, he chose not to take action that he was well within his rights to take.


----------



## Michael OLeary

He took the actions available to him with the course staff, and failed to receive any support. If you wish to interpret that as a failure to take action, by all means do so.  His staff had responsibilities as well that were not taken up. The fault here does not rest solely with the soldier.


----------



## aesop081

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> His staff had responsibilities as well that were not taken up. The fault here does not rest solely with the soldier.



I'm not debating either point.


----------



## Fusaki

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Out West, I could really run with this one, but I better not.





			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> If that would be your decision, then I suggest you might consider moving to SanFrancisco.
> 
> There you might find your Life Style less subject to criticism or the subject of concern.



You should be embarrassed to put up that MP badge as your avatar, and then go on posting these kinds of inflammatory and discriminatory comments.


----------



## FastEddy

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> You should be embarrassed to put up that MP badge as your avatar, and then go on posting these kinds of inflammatory and discriminatory comments.



On the contrary, the running comment was meant as a joke, as the comment it referred to was also humorous and in that vein.

As for the other, the suggestion and comments they are factual and was offered as a possible solution. No where were derogatory or discriminatory remarks implied or stated.

However, it is your prerogative, if you wish to interpet it that way.  

The refferal to MP & Avatars is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Can I paraphrase you.........I will anyway.



The difference is that some of those groups have been subject to very real oppression including enslavement and mass murder. They are a little more sensitive as a result, and understandably so.

People tell blonde (woman) jokes, but blondes are not actively discriminated against and, in fact, being blond gives one some social and career advantages according to a couple of articles that I have read, and everybody knows that we have more fun.

I do not think that it would be acceptable in general Canadian society today to use "Jewish" as a substitute for "stupid". "Gay" probably shouldn't be either. I cannot imagine "blond" ever becoming an insult, so even if somebody tried to use it as one it would only amuse me rather than offend me. I would probably ascribe it to jealousy on their part.

A retort to somebody using "gay" as an insult along those lines, ie "You're just jealous that you're not gay", may be effective (but also potentially risky).

It is interesting to note that some notoriously anti-gay politicians and preachers in the US have been caught in gay relationships. Generally the biggest protestors are merely trying to deflect suspicion of their own inner natures, or are denying their natures to themselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

A lot of one sided accusations and innuendo being thrown out here. I'm seeing no proof of action. Anyone can say "This happened to me!" Not saying it didn't, but.........

This soap box is being tossed onto the bonfire and a temporary lock put in place.

Usual caveats.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Occam

As the friend of someone who served over 25 years before he recently "came out" (and I hate that expression), I'm very sorry to see this is still going on.

WO McLean, do not let the actions of some idiots keep you from continuing the good work that you have done on so many fronts.



Original article

A Canadian soldier who served in Afghanistan says he received a threatening note, written by someone working at Kandahar Airfield, because he is gay.

Warrant Officer Andrew McLean, who had tried to hide his sexual orientation, told CBC News that he found the letter on his work station in September, during his 4½-month tour of duty in Kandahar.

"It said, 'You're gay. Because of this, minus-2' … that's metric [for] six feet, 6½ feet under?" McLean said in an interview from Winnipeg, where he recently took part in the Rick Hansen Relay.

"I went through a lot of emotions. I went through anger, embarrassment, humiliation … fear for my safety."

Canadian Forces officials said a harassment complaint was launched when McLean came forward with the discovery, but a full investigation could not be conducted without knowing who left the note at the NATO-run airfield.

Officials told CBC News on Monday that McLean's complaint was taken seriously, and new military camp harassment policies were even developed as a result.

McLean has since been moved to another job.

Kept sexuality a secret

McLean said he had spent years trying to hide the fact that he was gay.

"I tried every trick in the book to be heterosexual," he said.

When asked why, he replied, "Because that's the conflict. That's what society expects you to be."

"You see the negativity all around you, and why would anybody choose to confront that?" he said.

McLean said he was deployed to Afghanistan in mid-July and spent two months there before the note was left on his desk.

"It was a gut punch," he said. "I had been there for two months, doing a really good job. We were working together."

McLean said he struggled for two days before taking the threat — and the truth about his sexuality — up the chain of command.

"These types of notes are what pushes people over the edge," he said.

Now with his sexuality out in the open, McLean said he feels like he is 100 per cent himself for the first time in his life. He said he hopes his experience will empower other gay men and women to take a stand.

While he said he may never know who left the note on his desk in Kandahar, he said he won't ignore what happened.

"If I don't stand up, who's going to stand up?" he said. "If I don't identify something, then who's going to identify it?"


----------



## Stoker

This is very unfortunate and uncalled for, however not surprising. With all the training we receive as members there still be some narrow minded people who will resort to these measures. I do hope though that the member did not report this to CBC himself, that I have a problem with.


----------



## vonGarvin

Before everyone crowds the "I'm not a _homophobe_" bandwagon, take a step back and read the note.  
"You're gay.  Because of this -2".  

Is that a threat?  Seriously?  If a threat were to be given anonymously, wouldn't it be more blatant, and include words like "faggot" or "queer" or worse?

Or could this be a case of someone leaving a note meant in jest, as in "you're gay: -2 points" (or whatever).  I mean, for the life of me, "-2" is supposed to be metric for six feet under?  If anything, threatening notes are a bit more....graphic.  Especially if they are anonymous.


It's been mentioned: why go to the CBC?  

I'm just not convinced that the note was as threatening as he made it out to be.  I'm not going to pretend that it was in good taste or even appropriate, but I'm suspicious to think that it was a threat.  I've seen some threats, and they have always been, as I mentioned, more graphic and blatant in their tone. Especially if they are anonymous.

My  :2c:

EDIT TO ADD:
The more I think about this, the more I think that we are all potentially capable of such unintended consequences, without even knowing or thinking about it.  As we banter around at work, at play, or whereever, there could be times where the word "gay" is thrown out there in a negative tone, without even realising that one of your mates could be a homosexual.  You see, if you don't know, then it means that they are still struggling with it.  And by tossing out such words (and I know I'm guilty of this), we are unintentionally offending them or even harming them, let alone confusing them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe the Gay - 2 has something to do with an addition to the PER system?




> Now with his sexuality out in the open, McLean said he feels like he is 100 per cent himself for the first time in his life. He said he hopes his experience will empower other gay men and women to take a stand.



Kind of conflicting- It was a horrible horrible experience which ended with him feeling 100% himself and presumably unburdened by having to live a lie.
So should he really be upset or thank the note writer?



> I'm suspicious to think that it was a threat


Me too.


----------



## Scott

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Maybe the Gay - 2 has something to do with an addition to the PER system?
> 
> 
> Kind of conflicting- It was a horrible horrible experience which ended with him feeling 100% himself and presumably unburdened by having to live a lie.
> So should he really be upset or thank the note writer?
> Me too.



I can't speak for WO McLean, but perhaps he feels better because he was able to talk to his CoC about it and found them supportive?

I can see why folks might be skeptical that it was indeed a threat, but that doesn't make the originator any less stupid for pulling a stunt like this.


----------



## George Wallace

With every passing minute, I am amazed at how many fracking stupid people there are out there.


----------



## Spooks

When I read that note, I was perplexed that -2 meant '6ft under'.

Here on the forums, I don't see it happen as much anymore, buit does everyone remember the '+1' system. If you make an exceptional post, you get +2. I first viewed this based on that system.

I guess this makes me a nerd.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With every passing minute, I am amazed at how many fracking stupid people there are out there.



Not just from this, but I'm convinced that we, humans, all of us, are dumb.  And that often times, we do things that have unintended consequences.


----------



## 405sqn

Sounds like he's done some great work in the "Soldier On" program as well.  He was awarded the MSM last week (and has also been promoted):

Sergeant Charles Andrew McLean, M.M.M., M.S.M., C.D.

Ottawa, Ontario

Meritorious Service Medal (Military Division)

Since 2007, Sergeant McLean’s dedication to Soldier On, a program which he co-founded, has ensured the continued success of this initiative to optimize the functional independence of Canadian Forces members or former members who have become ill or who have been injured. His passion and commitment have provided opportunities for these individuals to reach beyond their physical limitations and find a better quality of life on their road to recovery and reintegration. Over the years, he has successfully promoted and created awareness of the needs of injured and ill Canadian Forces members and their families, as well as the programs available to them.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Good day, below is a letter I wrote to my friends and I thought I would share it here because Army.ca is a big reason for SO/SL success and many on here have supported my efforts over the years.

Being objective is not easy, I try to make decisions and judgments based on more then one source of information. I would not go on CBC unless I truly believed I had a good reason. All approvals achieved and signed..

Friends,

I would like to extend a heart felt THANKYOU for your show of support the past couple of days. I am not at all surprised at the depth of character of those whom I know and call my friends, I have also received msgs from people I do not know and that speaks volumes to their character as well. THANKYOU

It was an hour long interview expressed in 2min so believe me when I say there is more. The interview did focus on the perceived concern I had for my safety but I was able to mitigate that down to probably not (I believe I was justified in asking myself that question due to the environment I was in) No one should have to ask that question regarding the people they work with! 

The note was a negative and it hurt and offended me as a person and I believe the uniform that I represent, I am a team player and what happens to one happens to all. I am far from perfect but I along with many I know work hard at the pursuit of excellance. That will never change.

As for the whole coming out thing, a few of my friends knew already and the past couple of years if someone asked I told them. (not many ask because it does not matter) I would say it was not so much of hiding but more on the side of trying hard to fit in and after years of trying reality catches up. 

I will continue to push forward and I know I am not alone. 

Without Regard for my personal comfort or self advancement 
That Others May Live

Thank you all once again for your support and friendship.

Andrew  
 P.S. I will respond to everyone who sent me a msg or email.

GRIMALDUS: read the second para again, it was one of many. In the interview and with others I have been open in discussing my many different reactions..... also the note was left right after the DADT policy was repealed..... context and environment play a big role in how one perceives discrimination and harassment, if you are gay then you may have a greater insight then others due to a history of experiences. I also found the note to be pretty smart, most people do not come right out and say they are a bigot or racist or that they discriminate against a demographic, today they have learned to be smart in presenting words and probably one of the best ways to get people thinking is in the form of a riddle.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks Andrew


----------



## Jarnhamar

Andrew, do you really feel that a note saying "you're gay, because of this minus 2 " is a threat to your safety?  I think too much is being read into that note.



Figure someone was just being a moron or trying be funny but failing, I think it's safe to say your friends have your back- I wouldn't worry about it


----------



## the 48th regulator

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Andrew, do you really feel that a note saying "you're gay, because of this minus 2 " is a threat to your safety?




I am guessing this is the system that Andrews is talking about;

http://www.tutorials.com/05/0570/057010.asp


Fathom: In U.S. measurements, a fathom is six feet. In metric terms, it's 1.8 meters. Estimate: 2 meters for every fathom. U.S.: When you think of a fathom, think about being six feet under(!). Metric: The term "fathom" comes from a person's TWO arms outstretched.

Andrew,

I am honoured to know you, for what you have done, accomplish, and will continue to accomplish.  In this world there are two kinds of people;  Champions, and Donkey Lickers.

A Champion like you does not need worry about Donkey lickers learning how to write on paper.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Strike

Andrew, if certain comments I've seen on Facebook from those who Soldier On has helped are any indication, I don't think you have to worry about what your friends think.  They know, like and admire you for who you are and what you've done.  Full stop.

As for me, I still see you as a damn fine SAR Tech! (Yes, there is a hidden meaning in that   ;D  Hey, a girl can dream!)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for sharing the rest of the story WO M - if nothing else, you'll get a bunch of sympathy from others who've been underquoted by the media.

Take care - in a variation on Tess's theme, better to be a keener than a weiner.


----------



## Scott

Thanks Andrew.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Andrew, don't let the bastards grind you down.  As you already know there are small minds everywhere, stuff em.  Whomever wrote the note is a cowardly POS who should have had the backbone to speak to your face.


----------



## armyvern

Well Andrew, I guess most of it's been said. Chin up. Most of us don't care about your sexuality and most of us realize that you are one hell of a soldier and a great ambassador for the CF and Soldier On. 

As for your interview, I too sat for a long interview over there in late-November that came out in a mag last month. It's interesting what tidbits they chose to put into print. 

I'm pretty sure that I saw you at the gym a couple of times, perhaps the zumba jail too ... I echo what Strike said. Good job and keep up the excellent attitude!!


----------



## q_1966

Keep up the excellent work Andrew, makes me proud to be Canadian


----------



## Teeps74

Andrew, by all accounts, you are a good man. Do not let the negativity of the small man get you down. As others have indicated, your strength and generosity has helped build a large network of friends, a network that I hope you will see has grown a bit today.

Stay strong. When necessary, lean on your friends. Lean on us. Take care.


----------



## Takeniteasy

A recent article in the Maple Leaf.... 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/article-eng.asp?id=22&y=2012&m=06


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is there a list of which month is dedicated to which minority in the CF?
Like a list of " X awareness Month"


----------



## Strike

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> A recent article in the Maple Leaf....
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/article-eng.asp?id=22&y=2012&m=06



Ref the person mentioned in the article, I recall a couple of guys in Halifax saying how much they loved hitting the bars with him because he was the perfect wing man.   ;D


----------



## Takeniteasy

The CF follows suit with government and Canadian society awareness campaigns, Aboriginal, Woman's, Disabilities and Visible minority advisory groups fall under the Employment Equity Act (ML article attached) and are all mandated by government.  GLBT are not included in the employment equity act campaigns as of today but I believe DHRD is working on including this minority even though it is not mandated to do so as of yet.  This article could be a  first step in establishing a possible CF Champion and advisory committee.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6769


----------



## Popurhedoff

Last year I was in Ft. Bragg, NC on my SOFSEC course (Special Operation Force Senior Enlisted Course)  and the topic of conversation one day prior to class starting was the rescinding of the "Don't Ask, Don't" policy. Just about every member there was angered at the policy and the bias and prejudices towards homosexuality was evident.  A lot of these old Chiefs were complaining and nothing good was going to come out of this topic.

I listened intently to their conversations and at the end I closed it off with my sediments... I told them that 25 years ago, homosexuals were not allowed in our Military, they were persecuted and released from the service, as time went on and the policies changed, I can tell you that 25 years later that it just doesn't matter anymore.  Times change, policies change, and in 25 years from now it just wont matter to you and will be a non issue.  I told them that as far as I am concerned, if anyone is willing to share a foxhole, take all the same chances, and do their duty, then I do not see it as a problem, neither does society.

I could see that a few of them actually understood, and of course the others that didn't... time will tell for them.  As the only International student on that course I believe that my sediments and outlook gave many something to think about. For the rest of the course, we did engage in a lot of varied topics and I feel that I had made a constructive impact on them.

Andrew, keep up the great work.

Cheers
Pop


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RCAF Air Force News Article As one door closes...

June 7, 2012

By Holly Bridges

Warrant Officer Andrew McLean joined the Canadian Forces in 1991, vowing to serve his country and put the safety and security of others ahead of his own. For the past 21 years, he’s done that and then some, serving first as a Canadian Army soldier with the 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment and then as a search and rescue technician (SAR tech) at 17 Wing Winnipeg, Man., 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S., and 8 Wing Trenton, Ont.

Today, as he dons his CF uniform for the last time, WO McLean is taking a different kind of oath – to continue the work he started as the co-founder and champion of Soldier On, a Canadian Forces Personnel and Family Support Services (CFPFSS) rehabilitation program. The program is designed to help injured members “get back in the game - running, biking, skiing, whatever it is they want to do,” said WO McLean back in 2006, while the program was still a dream. WO McLean dreamed of starting the program after many of his friends began returning from Afghanistan with multiple amputations.

His dream was fulfilled in 2006 when he co-founded Soldier On with Greg Lagacé, Paralympic Development Manager with the Canadian Paralympic Committee. In 2007, responsibility for Soldier On was transferred to CFPFSS and in November of that year the Soldier On program was complemented by the creation of the Soldier On Fund.

Now, five years later, WO McLean is retiring from the CF to pursue a full-time career supporting and advocating for people with developmental disabilities. Next fall, he begins the two-year Disability and Community Support Program at Red River College in Winnipeg, Man., and plans to complete a university degree in disabilities management shortly thereafter.

“My success in championing and developing Soldier On gave me a lot of experience and going back to school is another step that will contribute to my growing knowledge, efforts and passion to support others,” says WO McLean.

Education is only one part of WO McLean’s “exit strategy” from the CF. Through the Canada Gives organization, he has also started an endowment fund called the Canadian Torch Foundation to raise $1 million for post-secondary scholarships for persons with disabilities or for those who are entering disabilities studies. He kicked off the campaign by contributing $25,000 of his own money to get things started.

“As the fund grows hopefully we’ll have one in each province and territory,” says WO McLean. The foundation will also provide grants to rehabilitation programs for children, youth and young adults across Canada.

Always one to put his heart and soul into everything he does, WO McLean also paid special attention to designing a suitable logo for the foundation, one that would represent “the fire that burns in each of us to make a difference.

“The torch is symbolic of the responsibility we all have in making sure progress is carried forward. The hearts you see in the logo symbolize the passion and fire in all of us to support one another,” he says. “I know it takes a lot of work to be successful. I have not always been successful in my endeavours but I have always shown heart in at least trying.”

As for what WO McLean will remember most about his 21 years in the CF, the list contains both personal and professional milestones.

“I am not sure I can narrow it down to any one thing. Graduating from the Royal Canadian Regiment battle school, being shot at for the first time and standing our ground, being named combat corporal of the year, SAR tech of the year, saving a life with my bare hands, still holding the two fastest times for the Petawawa Ironman, being five-time Canadian Ultra Running champion, running 100 miles (160 kilometres) in the Yukon in -30o weather while pulling a 50 pound (23 kilogram) survival toboggan, being a Paralympic torch bearer, winning the King Clancy award from the Canadian Foundation of Physically Disabled Persons or co-founding and championing Soldier On/Sans Limites to name just a few.

“In the end I think my greatest accomplishment in the CF was that I initiated, acted and participated. I did my job with focus and passion and never compromised my integrity.

“I am exceptionally proud of the service I and many others have given to Canada and to the Canadian Forces as a whole. I have served along side many who, like myself, strive to honour human spirit, human dignity and human worth. The never-ending pursuit of excellence that we as the Canadian Forces embody both in our commitment to our defence team personnel and in our responsibilities both foreign and domestic are second to none. Duty, loyalty, integrity and courage are not just words but actions achieved by many. Salute.”

WO McLean’s last day in uniform is June 7, 2012.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 years service as an Infanteer and then a SAR Tech.  Doesn't leave much of a question as to the man's abilities, IMO.

I'll suggest that the f**ktards who left the "-2" note wouldn't last a day in his boots, ref this quote from the article: 

As for what WO McLean will remember most about his 21 years in the CF, the list contains both personal and professional milestones.

“I am not sure I can narrow it down to any one thing. Graduating from the Royal Canadian Regiment battle school, being shot at  for the first time and standing our ground, being named combat corporal of the year, SAR tech of the year, saving a life with my bare hands, still holding the two fastest times for the Petawawa Ironman, being five-time Canadian Ultra Running champion, running 100 miles (160 kilometres) in the Yukon in -30o weather while pulling a 50 pound (23 kilogram) survival toboggan, being a Paralympic torch bearer, winning the King Clancy award from the Canadian Foundation of Physically Disabled Persons or co-founding and championing Soldier On/Sans Limites to name just a few.

WO (Ret'd) McLean, good luck with your studies at Red River and in your future.


----------



## Greymatters

John Tescione said:
			
		

> I am guessing this is the system that Andrews is talking about;
> 
> http://www.tutorials.com/05/0570/057010.asp
> 
> 
> Fathom: In U.S. measurements, a fathom is six feet. In metric terms, it's 1.8 meters. Estimate: 2 meters for every fathom. U.S.: When you think of a fathom, think about being six feet under(!). Metric: The term "fathom" comes from a person's TWO arms outstretched.
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> I am honoured to know you, for what you have done, accomplish, and will continue to accomplish.  In this world there are two kinds of people;  Champions, and Donkey Lickers.
> 
> A Champion like you does not need worry about Donkey lickers learning how to write on paper.....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Why would the person making athreat use vague naval terminology?  Most threats use coarse language and name actions involving specific body parts.  Very unusual...


----------



## ballz

Are the semantics that important / worth debating???

The situation was that an outstanding soldier who contributed more than most of us dream we ever will, was made to feel like a lesser being, whether through harassment, threats, or other things or a combination, because of his sexual orientation.

When the man himself says that we aren't getting the full story



			
				IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> it was one of many.





			
				IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> context and environment play a big role in how one perceives discrimination and harassment



I'm going to think he deserves the benefit of a doubt more than the moron that wrote the note.

WO (Ret'd) McLean, my hats off to you, and good luck in your future which I am sure will be a successful one. You're a great example that those against the DADT policy can point to when people who are still five or six decades behind are flooding the air with their verbal diarrhea.


----------



## vonGarvin

ballz said:
			
		

> Are the semantics that important / worth debating???


Yes, they are, because apparently that's the crux of the issue.  The original assertion was that the -2 was referring to six feet under which referred to him being threatened with death.  The counter to that was it was a stretch to assume that it referred to an obscure nautical reference.


----------



## Takeniteasy

I appreciate the support that I have received since this incident.  We will never know what the note meant or what the person or persons who left it were trying to prove.  I have moved passed trying to figure out what the intent was (in the end my reaction was not an over reaction) and focused on what mechanism was in place or not in place once I came forward to formally file a harassment/discrimination complaint. .The note meets all the criteria for workplace harassment/discrimination. (no one disputes that) 

(I will add that the COC had different reactions as well to what the note meant - the question regarding my personal safety was asked by me and a few others in the COC and rightly so.  I can also tell you that I was not the one who interpreted the note as a "Death Threat" that person was not only a higher rank but was in a position that requires situational and operational awareness far beyond my given responsibilities.) 

Prior to releasing I did submit a 5600 word grievance that was well written/organized and researched.  

One of the issues that I highlight in the grievance is the fact that no Formal Administrative investigation was conducted because there was no "Respondent".  I disagree with this.  If I came forward to report someone had stolen operational equipment but I did not know who did it, do you think that it would engage an investigation? I think the answer to that is yes...

I am released now but will continue to pursue on the grounds of principle and in knowing that this grievance will most likely provide reasons and lessons learned for improving the mechanism's to investigate future formal complaints in unique operational environments.  i.e. Maple Leaf article addresses from a Captain (Navy) leadership perspective the responsibilities we have in not only understanding the policy but the importance of the application of that policy for whom it protects.  This can be applied to all forms of harassment, discrimination and  un professional behavior in a supposed highly professional environment.

I know at some point I will post the entire grievance (names removed) but will wait for the system to run it's course.  If only for the simple exercise of providing one example for others to possibly learn from.

Andrew


----------



## vonGarvin

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> We will never know what the note meant or what the person or persons who left it were trying to prove.


This emphasises my point, and brings forth the important message that what we say isn't as important as what people think we say.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This emphasises my point, and brings forth the important message that what we say isn't as important as what people think we say.



Technoviking, I am not sure I am understanding your point,  Are you saying to be careful what you say or "write down" because people may interpret what you say or "write down" in a negative/positive way?  That is how we communicate, it is not only the words but body language, context, environment and other variables that come into play when interpreting what we see,hear or feel...


----------



## vonGarvin

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> Technoviking, I am not sure I am understanding your point,  Are you saying to be careful what you say or "write down" because people may interpret what you say or "write down" in a negative/positive way?  That is how we communicate, it is not only the words but body language, context, environment and other variables that come into play when interpreting what we see,hear or feel...


My point is that when people talk to others (in any medium), they ought to be careful that what they say is understood in the manner in which its intended.  In short, know what you want to say, and then say it.  That's all.


----------



## vonGarvin

And if you say something that could be misinterpreted, then it probably will be.  That's all.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My point is that when people talk to others (in any medium), they ought to be careful that what they say is understood in the manner in which its intended.  In short, know what you want to say, and then say it.  That's all.



I agree,  and in this context it is only one part of the story.  The short riddle nature of this note caused varied reactions (mine being the most important and the focus) another reaction  had someone use the words "Death Threat". When I heard this I thought that someone would not just use those words without first understanding the situation or knowing of other information that I did not have access to... the position of the person saying those words also plays a role in how a subordinate will react as well....

The CBC interview was edited and the part that people did not see was how I was explaining how someone could interpret the note as a "Death Threat" (were they thinking in Canadian metric terms and -2 two would convert to 6 feet under, I was trying to understand how someone would come to that conclusion.. aside from my own personal feelings and reactions.) again I asked "was my personal safety at risk??" And that question was reasonable in that situation and environment and I was the one who had to endure that for the remaining two months at KAF... ( and yes the question to send me home early was asked by myself first before the COC addressed it!!)


----------



## ballz

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, they are, because apparently that's the crux of the issue.  The original assertion was that the -2 was referring to six feet under which referred to him being threatened with death.  The counter to that was it was a stretch to assume that it referred to an obscure nautical reference.



I didn't see that crux anywhere in the article or mentioned as a reason to why the investigation couldn't be completed, etc. It seems to me that the issue of whether or not it was meant to be a threat is an issue that only exists in this thread. That makes me wonder if it's something worth debating or not, because given the man's accomplishments and character I will choose to trust his assessment from a much better vantage point than ours.

The bigger issue at hand that I see is that a full investigation "couldn't be completed," and exactly how the policy was changed (which the article doesn't even mention.... fantastic journalism.) to correct the old policy's shortcomings. I look forward to updates on the grievance process if WO (Ret'd) McLean decides to keep us updated.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And if you say something that could be misinterpreted, then it probably will be.  That's all.


You've been talking to my wife, obviously.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> -SAR tech of the year
> -still holding the two fastest times for the Petawawa Ironman,
> -being five-time Canadian Ultra Running champion, running 100 miles (160 kilometres) in the Yukon in -30o weather while pulling a 50 pound (23 kilogram) survival toboggan




I'm surprised you didn't leave them a note back saying "Bring it on pu**y".


----------



## Takeniteasy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you didn't leave them a note back saying "Bring it on pu**y".



Depending on how you look at it I have left them a note, I just wont go to their level of a  :slapfight: to get my point across.  I prefer to respond with integrity and professionalism. After all it is not just about me.


----------



## Jarnhamar

IRONMAN3 said:
			
		

> Depending on how you look at it I have left them a note, I just wont go to their level of a  :slapfight: to get my point across.  I prefer to respond with integrity and professionalism. After all it is not just about me.



You're a better (and tougher) man than me.

That said I'm going to take that Ironman fastest time away from you


----------



## Cansky

http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/2013/06/06/gay-pride-flag/


Tomorrow morning Friday June 7 2013, the gay pride flag will be raised at CFB Edmonton.  It is believed to be the first time this has occurred on a military base in North America. Although their may be some who dislike this.  It is proof of our military's inclusions of all Canadians.  No matter gender, race or sexual orientation all can serve.  MWO McDougall is a friend and co-worker well done to him for organizing this event.


----------



## rampage800

Sorry Kirsten but having a little trouble comprehending what raising a Gay Pride flag on the base actually does. IMO its opening a can of worms, where does it stop, every ethnic minority will want their flag raised on a Canadian Forces Base because now a precedence has been set. I have no problem whatsoever with these groups but I'm pretty sure the Canadian Flag by itself is already all encompassing of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Sythen

rampage800 said:
			
		

> the Canadian Flag by itself is already all encompassing of race, gender and sexual orientation.
> 
> Just my opinion.



An opinion I am in complete agreement with.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Raising the rainbow flag is a symbol to those oppressed that the CF is accepting of them now and in a large public way.


----------



## Cansky

Yes I agree that the Canadian Flag is and should be all inclusive but when we still raise the Quebec flag for St Jean Baptiste day, Aboriginal Flag etc why not the Gay pride flag too.  I welcome the day that we celebrate all Canadians as Canadians but that is not what happens today.  We still look at all minorities as individual groups since there is international womens day etc.  I think by raising this flag its not only Canada that benefits but maybe we as a nation are influencing other countries (IE USA) to change as well.


----------



## George Wallace

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Sorry Kirsten but having a little trouble comprehending what raising a Gay Pride flag on the base actually does. IMO its opening a can of worms, where does it stop, every ethnic minority will want their flag raised on a Canadian Forces Base because now a precedence has been set. I have no problem whatsoever with these groups but I'm pretty sure the Canadian Flag by itself is already all encompassing of race, gender and sexual orientation.
> 
> Just my opinion.



So true.  Do we now have to raise the "Warrior Flag" in recognition of our Native members?  Will there ever be an end to the silly PC'ness?

I know.  A silly question.  Of course there won't.

[edit to add]


			
				Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> Yes I agree that the Canadian Flag is and should be all inclusive but when we still raise the Quebec flag for St Jean Baptiste day, Aboriginal Flag etc.



Guess that answers that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> It is proof of our military's inclusions of all Canadians.  No matter gender, race or sexual orientation all can serve.



I don't see how it's proof.    That gay men and women (and those in between) are allowed to serve in the CF openly is proof of our military's inclusion of all Canadians.

I guess it could be symbolic, if I was in CFB Edmonton I'd just be thinking damn I hope I don't have to stand on some kind of parade and listen to speeches.


----------



## Tank Troll

:goodpost:

Ditto on that thought

Rampage 800, ObedientiaZelum mil points on the way


----------



## Haggis

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do we now have to raise the "Warrior Flag" in recognition of our Native members?



The Warrior Society - and it's flag - is not representative of all First Nations peoples.  Just a small minority of , um, "activists".  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will there ever be an end to the silly PC'ness?



 :rofl:

Even though it's a rhetorical question, it's still funny.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> .... That gay men and women (and those in between) are allowed to serve in the CF openly is proof of our military's inclusion of all Canadians.


You're right, but it's one thing to _BE_ inclusive, and another to be _SEEN TO BE_ inclusive - people who are in the military know how gay men/women are treated in the CF, but how many gay man/women among the general public know how they're treated?  The CF knowing something is the case =/= the public knowing.  



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I guess it could be symbolic, if I was in CFB Edmonton *I'd just be thinking damn I hope I don't have to stand on some kind of parade and listen to speeches*.


Good one.


----------



## George Wallace

Years ago, after they had brought SHARP training into being, they came out with a second type of training that we all had to do.  It was called "DIFFERENTIAL Training" and it was about how we were all 'different'; we were "X's" and "Y's".  At the end of the Death by PowerPoint and films, we all just looked at each other and wondered how stupid that all was.  Instead of teaching us how different we were, how divisive it was, it should have concentrated on how much the same we were.  We all wore green and were members of a proud unit.  We were all Canadians serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.  We were a "TEAM", not individuals.  

Needless to say, not too many people have heard of this training or care to remember it.


----------



## GAP

so......what week is "HETERO WEEK".....


----------



## Dirt Digger

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Sorry Kirsten but having a little trouble comprehending what raising a Gay Pride flag on the base actually does. IMO its opening a can of worms, where does it stop, every ethnic minority will want their flag raised on a Canadian Forces Base because now a precedence has been set. I have no problem whatsoever with these groups but I'm pretty sure the Canadian Flag by itself is already all encompassing of race, gender and sexual orientation.
> 
> Just my opinion.



However the Pride flag has nothing to do with ethnic minorities - IMHO, it's a social flag for a community that transcends racial boundaries.  

As someone that entered the CF at the age of 17, carrying some rather negative stereotypes about the LGBT community - I am proud to say that service effectively "cured" me of my ignorance.  If this helps in any small way to show the public that the CF is an accepting environment (which we all know already is), then it has my full support.  :nod:


----------



## Journeyman

Kirsten Luomala said:
			
		

> It is believed to be the first time this has occurred on a military base in North America.


Hardly new; their flag has been flying over one of the gates at CFB Kingston for years now.



What?  That's the RCEME flag?!   ???  They're the same, aren't they?

   :-[  Never mind.



 ;D  <--- It's a joke


----------



## GAP

maybe RCEME moved to Edmonton......never thought of that did you? So there!!


----------



## Strike

GAP said:
			
		

> so......what week is "HETERO WEEK".....



Every week is hetero week.


----------



## George Wallace

Strike said:
			
		

> Every week is hetero week.



What kind of flag do we fly?


----------



## Tank Troll

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What kind of flag do we fly?



None, because we are not allowed to celebrate it, as it might offend others ;D


----------



## Remius

You know, there was a time when we (and by we I mean the CF) when we would kick out people for being homosexual.  There was a time also where you could be jailed for that too.  And I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago either. A few decades.  Some current members in the CF joined under that cloud.  Some may have actually been part of the system that drummed them out too.

It isn't necessarily something PC either.  it just has to do with recognising a segment of the forces that used to be marginalised by the CF.  If a flag being raised at a base during one week that is internationally recognised ruffles your feathers, I would suggest perhaps finding something else to do.  This is no big deal.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> .... it just has to do with recognising a segment of the forces that used to be marginalised by the CF ....


And showing taxpayers this is the case, too - like I said before, troops knowing how troops treat troops =/= Canadians knowing how troops treat troops.


----------



## Strike

Crantor said:
			
		

> You know, there was a time when we (and by we I mean the CF) when we would kick out people for being homosexual.  There was a time also where you could be jailed for that too.  And I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago either. A few decades.  Some current members in the CF joined under that cloud.  Some may have actually been part of the system that drummed them out too.
> 
> It isn't necessarily something PC either.  it just has to do with recognising a segment of the forces that used to be marginalised by the CF.  If a flag being raised at a base during one week that is internationally recognised ruffles your feathers, I would suggest perhaps finding something else to do.  This is no big deal.



Well said.

If the comments on FB, Twitter and news pages are any indication, the general public is very pleased with the move.  Now that we are pulling away from Afghanistan, anything positive that we can throw out there for the public to see benefits us all.


----------



## Journeyman

Crantor said:
			
		

> This is no big deal.


  Exactly.    :boring:


----------



## Tank Troll

Crantor said:
			
		

> You know, there was a time when we (and by we I mean the CF) when we would kick out people for being homosexual.  There was a time also where you could be jailed for that too.  And I'm not talking about hundreds of years ago either. A few decades.  Some current members in the CF joined under that cloud.  Some may have actually been part of the system that drummed them out too.



Yup that policy ended in January of 1986,  up until 1972 the forces would kick females out if they became pregnant, until the mid 60s they would kick them out if they became married. What is your point?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Now normally I would come in here mentioning how the LGBT community says "don't treat us any different, we're just like you but let's have a parade/raise a flag/etc to show everyone how different we are" but not this time.

I think the point about showing the LGBT community that we as Canadian Forces are accepting of everyone VS the common stereotype (maybe thanks to the US) that most people think about soldiers.

Good work.


----------



## Cansky

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Yup that policy ended in January of 1986,  up until 1972 the forces would kick females out if they became pregnant, until the mid 60s they would kick them out if they became married. What is your point?



Actually it was officially changed in 1992 according to this http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/tml/article-eng.asp?id=22&y=2012&m=06


----------



## Tank Troll

I was in Cornwallis at that time and it was no longer a way to "get out" of the Military. We were all inform that Homosexuals (they didn't use that term) could no longer be kicked out for that reason because of the charter of human rights. How ever that didn't mean that they weren't still discriminated against, just that they couldn't be kicked out for it.


----------



## Takeniteasy

I will respond with the respect that this decision deserves. It is always nice to see when leadership is demonstrated and not conducted behind emails or the professing of 'we allow homosexuals to serve openly.'  When you have legislation; strategic, operational, and tactical plans to include diversity you are honouring individuals with respect and dignity based on their individual needs.  We have legislation for employment equity for woman, visible minorities, aboriginal, and persons with disabilities, why? Because Canada as a whole understands the importance of fulfilling the needs of the individuals that make up this great country. Individuals are the strength behind the collective goal of an institution.  The fundamental principle of acknowledging individual rights and freedoms is the foundation of why the CF is able to be progressive and creative in demonstrating leadership, developing strategies to improve employee health and wellness, and the inclusion of families. The CF often leads the way but not because of institutional force but because of the individual leadership that makes up that force from all ranks and defence team employees.

My last few months in the military were filled with interesting responses from senior ranks and many anecdotal stories from different individuals. In my eyes they emphasize the reason and importance of continued efforts to demonstrate leadership when it comes to the individual demographics that make up the CF;

'this is a sensitive subject'
'we don't need to know your business'
'divorce yourself from this and let the COC take care of it, things will come out otherwise' (response to my action of submitting a formal complaint)


Here is a link to some relevant background HX on the topic.  'Lest We Forget' them and the many more not listed.
http://www.clga.ca/Material/Records/docs/details/caf.htm

My salute to them.


----------



## Strike

Actually, thinking about all of this, the part about this whole flag-raising that I like the best?  It was initiated at the lowest level - a person on the base requested it.  It wasn't directed from above and it wasn't mandated that all bases do the same.  This was Edmonton showing its support for its Edmonton soldiers who are part of the LGBT community.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Who is base commander up there these days?


----------



## mariomike

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Who is base commander up there these days?



http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/EN/bcomd-cmdtb.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Now normally I would come in here mentioning how the LGBT community says "don't treat us any different, we're just like you but let's have a parade/raise a flag/etc to show everyone how different we are" but not this time.
> 
> I think the point about showing the LGBT community that we as Canadian Forces are accepting of everyone VS the common stereotype (maybe thanks to the US) that most people think about soldiers.
> 
> Good work.



I guess letting our serving members garner international attention by marching, in uniform, in Toronto's (and other cities) Pride parades doesn't do that then?

This is just a feel good initiative and, in actual fact, does absolutely nothing to change a single view of anyone on the subject.

It's nothing more than a "Woo hoo, look at me" attention whore moment.

"An opinion is like a penis, it’s okay to have one, it’s okay to be proud of it, it’s even okay to play with it. But it’s not okay to whip it out in public and try to shove it down the throats of others."


----------



## Shamrock

recceguy said:
			
		

> "An opinion is like a penis, it’s okay to have one, it’s okay to be proud of it, it’s even okay to play with it. But it’s not okay to whip it out in public and try to shove it down the throats of others."



Or attach a disclaimer about your opinion in your sig block.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's nothing more than a "Woo hoo, look at me" attention ***** moment.


One man's attention ***** moment is another man's community outreach/"showing the flag" (no pun intended).


----------



## Takeniteasy

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess letting our serving members garner international attention by marching, in uniform, in Toronto's (and other cities) Pride parades doesn't do that then?
> 
> This is just a feel good initiative and, in actual fact, does absolutely nothing to change a single view of anyone on the subject.
> 
> It's nothing more than a "Woo hoo, look at me" attention ***** moment.
> 
> "An opinion is like a penis, it’s okay to have one, it’s okay to be proud of it, it’s even okay to play with it. But it’s not okay to whip it out in public and try to shove it down the throats of others."



Recceguy your post is from a position of ignorance and provides little or no constructive input. 

You took the time to post so I took the time to respond.  :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Runner said:
			
		

> Recceguy your post is from a position of ignorance and provides little or no constructive input.
> 
> You took the time to post so I took the time to respond.  :facepalm:



Yeah okay, whatever.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

This is a slippery slope to start. Maybe we should raise a jewish star during hanukkah, or the league of muslims flag during ramadan... The list is long. If only there was one flag that represented everyone in the CF and for which it stands. O wait we have one   and it's one that people in the CF have served under for a long time, died wearing, and stood by proudly. So I think it is distasteful to raise any other flag. And I'm not even that patriotic.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

It is pride week in Edmonton.. this isn't just some random flag raising.


----------



## DirtyDog

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> ... if I was in CFB Edmonton I'd just be thinking damn I hope I don't have to stand on some kind of parade and listen to speeches.


Cringe worthy (the thought of having to do so)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

What bothers me about the whole thing is that they spent 50 years asking to be treated like everyone else and as equals.

No problem. We obliged.

Now however, as soon as they were not special anymore, they want to be seen and heard as something else. Special days, special flags, special parades, etc.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I just wish they'd make up their minds about what they want.

But then that's probably just my ignorant and unconstructive opinion.  :dunno:


----------



## DAA

This is like opening "Pandora's Box".  

Now that Edmonton has ventured into these waters, it pretty much opens the door for every segment of todays society to "ask for and expect" the same consideration.

I just hope they are prepared for the inevitable "Why not us?" question that I am sure will come.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Above two posts are bang on

I used "during", implying that I know it was not random. If that post was directed at me.


----------



## Strike

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> This is a slippery slope to start. Maybe we should raise a jewish star during hanukkah, or the league of muslims flag during ramadan... The list is long....





			
				DAA said:
			
		

> This is like opening "Pandora's Box".
> 
> Now that Edmonton has ventured into these waters, it pretty much opens the door for every segment of todays society to "ask for and expect" the same consideration.
> 
> I just hope they are prepared for the inevitable "Why not us?" question that I am sure will come.



It's about exposure, education and getting people talking.  If a bunch of Jewish soldiers want recognition during Hanukkah then all they have to do is ask to hold an event on the base or invite people to attend one they are organizing.  If Muslim soldiers/staff want recognition during Eid al Fitr then it's up to them to ask the base to support them in organizing an event to which everyone is invited (Who doesn't like a chance to eat!).

There is nothing stopping people from being recognized and, provided what they are seeking recognition for is in the best interest of the base or CF, there's no reason why it would be refused.  Those who complain that THEY need to be recognized and feel they aren't need to get off their asses and do the work, like the MWO who made the official request to raise the rainbow flag did.


----------



## Remius

recceguy said:
			
		

> Special days, special flags, special parades, etc.



Sounds a lot like what the CF does a lot of eh?

The fact that any of this bothers you is worrying.

I'm not bothered.  And neither should anyone else be.  This is not a big deal.  There are plenty of other things to be worried about.


----------



## Strike

Oh, and during Aboriginal Awareness Week CFB Edmonton celebrates a different aboriginal group every day at lunch with dancing, food, music and presentations on the base.

So, if anyone disagrees with attention being brought onto various groups then maybe they should avoid being posted here.

And there's a sweat lodge on the base.


----------



## Kat Stevens

So, does that mean all week there will be noon displays of simulated sodomy and oral copulation, a la the dignified procedures of pride parades everywhere?  I kid, save the flames, I don't care if you copulate with a timber rattler as long as the snake can tell me he's into it.


----------



## Shamrock

Strike said:
			
		

> Oh, and during Aboriginal Awareness Week CFB Edmonton celebrates a different aboriginal group every day at lunch with dancing, food, music and presentations on the base.
> 
> So, if anyone disagrees with attention being brought onto various groups then maybe they should avoid being posted here.
> 
> And there's a sweat lodge on the base.



And every Sunday the base accommodates me and my family in a building built exclusively for our observances.


----------



## Takeniteasy

Recceguy you are not doing yourself any good by compounding your response, your last post was no better and even worse then your first.  I stated your first post was from a position of ignorance (uniformed), now with you second post it is not just your position coming from ignorance that limits your credibility but your words are ignorant. (willfully uniformed)  Notice the difference between the two. 

I heard a lot and chose my battles carefully and contributed greatly over my career (Soldier On to name just one etc...) and have no regrets.  I never have and never will ask for anyone to validate my position;  it has been earned through efforts like Strike points out (get off your *** and do something) and with my pursuit in educating myself about different issues that exist in society as a whole.

I have demonstrated through my efforts the flag I represent, I do not need to explain that to anyone, I have said it before.  I do understand that this flag does represent pride for some of the individuals in the GLBT community and I respect that. 

You can willfully ignore intolerance or you can willfully address it through leadership, what is great about Canada is that you have a choice and can make that decision on your own. 

In my last discussion with my CM (2012) he indicated to me "unfortunately you will have that stigma with you." What he said was not inappropriate, it was a fair and honest assessment of the 'sensitive topic' we were discussing.  

I wish this CO was in my COC when I needed backup!

Just my opinion (a credible one)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sounds a lot like what the CF does a lot of eh?
> 
> The fact that any of this bothers you is worrying.
> 
> I'm not bothered.  And neither should anyone else be.  This is not a big deal.  There are plenty of other things to be worried about.



You're taking me too literal.

Trust me, I could really care less.



			
				Runner said:
			
		

> Recceguy you are not doing yourself any good by compounding your response, your last post was no better and even worse then your first.  I stated your first post was from a position of ignorance (uniformed), now with you second post it is not just your position coming from ignorance that limits your credibility but your words are ignorant. (willfully uniformed)  Notice the difference between the two.
> 
> I heard a lot and chose my battles carefully and contributed greatly over my career (Soldier On to name just one etc...) and have no regrets.  I never have and never will ask for anyone to validate my position;  it has been earned through efforts like Strike points out (get off your ass and do something) and with my pursuit in educating myself about different issues that exist in society as a whole.
> 
> I have demonstrated through my efforts the flag I represent, I do not need to explain that to anyone, I have said it before.  I do understand that this flag does represent pride for some of the individuals in the GLBT community and I respect that.
> 
> You can willfully ignore intolerance or you can willfully address it through leadership, what is great about Canada is that you have a choice and can make that decision on your own.
> 
> In my last discussion with my CM (2012) he indicated to me "unfortunately you will have that stigma with you." What he said was not inappropriate, it was a fair and honest assessment of the 'sensitive topic' we were discussing.
> 
> Just my opinion (a credible one)



Read my above response to Crantor.

I could also care less whether you think I'm ignorant of the subject or not. You don't know me

As to your opinion, I'll respect it because it's yours and what you wish to believe. 

However, if you wish to take my comments as a personal slight, so you can attack me, fill yer boots.

Because like I said, I could care less.


----------



## mariomike

Perhaps this will merge with the existing super-thread.

"The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF."
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/899.0


----------



## UnwiseCritic

I love how tolerance now means accepting/agreeing with the ideal and or person. It used to mean put up with and allow. 

 Funny thing with that is you don't tolerate my intolerance, therefore you are intolerant. 

No the flag thing is not a big deal, it's just an underlying symptom of how soft the army is becoming (not the gay part), I just don't like the idea of celebrating people's personal lives.  Escpecially if it means some poor sod has too stand on parade and listen to all the nothing being said. Plus I hate people that are politically correct all the time. I think it's just fine too offend people if your views differ. Who cares what other people think.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I love how tolerance now means accepting/agreeing with the ideal and or person. It used to mean put up with and allow.
> 
> Funny thing with that is you don't tolerate my intolerance, therefore you are intolerant.
> 
> No the flag thing is not a big deal, it's just an underlying symptom of how soft the army is becoming (not the gay part), I just don't like the idea of celebrating people's personal lives.  Escpecially if it means some poor sod has too stand on parade and listen to all the nothing being said. Plus I hate people that are politically correct all the time. I think it's just fine too offend people if your views differ. Who cares what other people think.


----------



## Strike

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now however, as soon as they were not special anymore, they want to be seen and heard as something else. Special days, special flags, special parades, etc.



To address this comment, then in that regard we shouldn't celebrate/recognize St Paddy's Day, religious holidays, Labour Day, Family Day, etc., etc., which are all days that recognize a certain element of the population (even though many of them may have lost their original meaning).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Strike said:
			
		

> To address this comment, then in that regard we shouldn't celebrate/recognize St Paddy's Day, religious holidays, Labour Day, Family Day, etc., etc., which are all days that recognize a certain element of the population (even though many of them may have lost their original meaning).



All recognised reasons to drink.


----------



## Strike

recceguy said:
			
		

> All recognised reasons to drink.



HERE HERE!!!   :cheers:

Now, go check out some photos of the patios during any Pride celebrations.  They're drinking too!


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> All recognised reasons to drink.


Interesting common ground ....


----------



## DirtyDog

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I love how tolerance now means accepting/agreeing with the ideal and or person. It used to mean put up with and allow.
> 
> Funny thing with that is you don't tolerate my intolerance, therefore you are intolerant.
> 
> No the flag thing is not a big deal, it's just an underlying symptom of how soft the army is becoming (not the gay part), I just don't like the idea of celebrating people's personal lives.  Escpecially if it means some poor sod has too stand on parade and listen to all the nothing being said. Plus I hate people that are politically correct all the time. I think it's just fine too offend people if your views differ. Who cares what other people think.


Yep.  'bout says it.


----------



## Remius

recceguy said:
			
		

> All recognised reasons to drink.



Well, can't argue that.  Checkmate.  I'm going for a beer now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If your opinions believe a group should be treated differently then your wrong. It's a sub culture that needs to be respected. Not agreed to but respected. 

50 yrs ago they wanted to be treated equally. They still do and a parade once a year causes awareness with the public hopefully creating an opportunity for them to finally attend true equality.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Not that I care either way, but by making a special point of doing this, "they", whoever "they" are, are doing exactly that, asking to be treated differently.  And it's not a sub culture, it's in every facet of Canadian society, like it or not, and I for one believe love, or lust if you prefer, doesn't see colour or gender.  "They" are just people, no more or less special than any others.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will there ever be an end to the silly PC'ness?
> 
> I know.  A silly question.  Of course there won't.



Not until the social activists are satisfied that Canadian society as we knew it is completely torn asunder, and replace with a lovely coalition of those who would include everyone - including those who murder, rape, plunder and have declared war on us in the name of religion. :facepalm:

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Journeyman

Runner said:
			
		

> Just my opinion (a credible one)


      :


----------



## Bigmac

This same debate occured when Sikh men were allowed to wear turbans, Native  men were allowed to keep long hair, and muslim women were allowed to wear burqas in uniform. Traditionalists will never accept change. The fact is the current military must recognize all demographics if it wants to represent all Canadians. I'm all for making every person feel accepted as long as it does not negate the "soldier first" mentality of the CF.  

Remember, one of the greatest military leaders in history " Alexander the Great" was a gay man.


----------



## OldSolduer

Bigmac said:
			
		

> This same debate occured when Sikh men were allowed to wear turbans, Native  men were allowed to keep long hair, and muslim women were allowed to wear burqas in uniform. Traditionalists will never accept change. The fact is the current military must recognize all demographics if it wants to represent all Canadians. I'm all for making every person feel accepted as long as it does not negate the "soldier first" mentality of the CF.



I quite agree with you in principle. As long as you soldier on to the best of your ability, I don't care if you're a one horned, one eared flying purple people eater. 

Where I start to care is when the sub group starts to say " you have to treat us different than the rest because we're special".

That just ain't on.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bigmac said:
			
		

> This same debate occured when Sikh men were allowed to wear turbans, Native  men were allowed to keep long hair, and muslim women were allowed to wear burqas hijabs in uniform ....


Fixed that for you - if the CF allowed a woman to dress like this for day-to-day duties ....





.... I think the media would have mentioned something.   ;D


----------



## Occam

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Plus I hate people that are politically correct all the time. I think it's just fine too offend people if your views differ. Who cares what other people think.



I agree with you to a point.  However, there are reasonable limits to expressing your views that may differ from everyone else's.

Just ask the real estate agent I fired earlier this week because she e-mailed me (and about 15 others, some of whom are also government employees by virtue of their e-mail addresses) a paraphrased version of the raving speech made by Geert Wilders.  When I asked if she sent it deliberately, or if it was possible she had a virus on her computer sending this stuff out, she confirmed she sent it and said _she felt it was important_.

I hope it was important enough to lose about $15,000 in commissions on the sale of our existing home and the purchase of a new one, as well as the broker/manager being made aware of the reason we terminated our listing agreement with their brokerage.


----------



## muskrat89

> Where I start to care is when the sub group starts to say " you have to treat us different than the rest because we're special".



"But you have to treat us the same too!"

The base flag poles will be worn out from from the constant running up and down of the Polygamists' flag, the Base Swingers' Club Flag, the Kenyan Immigrants' Association flag, the Alberta Hunting Club's flag, the Canadian PETA flag, the Society for Ginger People's flag....

My values, opinions and stances have softened significantly since my youth, and I am far more open-minded than I used to be. In spite of being labeled a dinosaur and traditionalist and a whatever, I have changed. Calm, rational discussions with people have helped; so has life experience; so has (contrary to what some may believe) my journey in Christianity. What has not helped has been demands of acceptance; nor garish,  flamboyant displays (a la Gay Pride parades); nor putting your cause and beliefs ahead of mine - and respecting my beliefs and my upbringing. After all, isn't that exactly what has created this paradigm?


----------



## Strike

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> What has not helped has been demands of acceptance; nor garish,  flamboyant displays (a la Gay Pride parades);



And the Caribana Toronto parades aren't much better (and have included shootings) but no one complains about those.  The only shootings at Pride parades tend to involve water pistols.   ;D



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ...nor putting your cause and beliefs ahead of mine. After all, isn't that exactly what has created this paradigm?



My experiences with people putting one group ahead of others has usually been done by groups who aren't even part of the association they are trying to 'protect.'  A school banning the telling of _The Three Little Pigs_ so as not to offend Muslims comes to mind.


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> Just ask the real estate agent I fired earlier this week because she e-mailed me .............a paraphrased version of the raving speech made by Geert Wilders.



Having just quickly skimmed his presentation, I wonder what your problem is with a member of the Dutch government voicing his concerns that the end of his freedoms and society may be in sight and pointing out what he thinks is the root cause.  I did not see any call for violence or hatred in what he presented; only alarm at the rapid changes happening to his society, not necessarily for the better ( Think unemployed living in ghettos not wanting to integrate into Western society. )


----------



## George Wallace

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> "But you have to treat us the same too!"
> 
> The base flag poles will be worn out from from the constant running up and down of the Polygamists' flag, the Base Swingers' Club Flag, the Kenyan Immigrants' Association flag, the Alberta Hunting Club's flag, the Canadian PETA flag, the Society for Ginger People's flag....
> 
> My values, opinions and stances have softened significantly since my youth, and I am far more open-minded than I used to be. In spite of being labeled a dinosaur and traditionalist and a whatever, I have changed. Calm, rational discussions with people have helped; so has life experience; so has (contrary to what some may believe) my journey in Christianity. What has not helped has been demands of acceptance; nor garish,  flamboyant displays (a la Gay Pride parades); nor putting your cause and beliefs ahead of mine - and respecting my beliefs and my upbringing. After all, isn't that exactly what has created this paradigm?



Where were all you people back in the last century when the Orange Order was banned from parading?   >


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Having just quickly skimmed his presentation, I wonder what your problem is with a member of the Dutch government voicing his concerns that the end of his freedoms and society may be in sight and pointing out what he thinks is the root cause.  I did not see any call for violence or hatred in what he presented; only alarm at the rapid changes happening to his society, not necessarily for the better ( Think unemployed living in ghettos not wanting to integrate into Western society. )



It's inciting hatred, George.  He was charged (but acquitted) of inciting hatred.  Now we all know that not guilty =/= innocent, or at least I hope we do.  While his opinions may have been (barely) within the bounds of the law, I (and I suspect most people in Canadian society) would find them beyond offensive.


----------



## Remius

I thought everyone had agreed to go out and have a beer?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

They did, but then someone felt their brand was really good and hoisted it up in the air while everyone else was just leaving their's on the table...an uproar ensued.    :blotto:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Like or dislike, it seems to be getting decent _positive_ coverage for the military in Edmonton, at any rate.

edited to fix link


----------



## ARMY_101

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I love how tolerance now means accepting/agreeing with the ideal and or person. It used to mean put up with and allow.
> 
> Funny thing with that is you don't tolerate my intolerance, therefore you are intolerant.



+1

Along with the phobification (is that a word?) of everything that used to be described otherwise. Now if you're not tolerant (under their definition) of gays you're homophobic, as if there's some mental disease or mental defect as the reason for your intolerance.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Actually if you think gays should be treated less then equal your homophobic.


----------



## Kat Stevens

No, you're not, you're just displaying ignorance, not fear.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I guess ignorance can't possibly lead to fear so apps good.


----------



## Kat Stevens

But until it does, it's not a phobia.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don't think it's fair to label someone as ignorant or intolerant just because they don't agree with a certain type of lifestyle.  

I wouldn't want to be...an...oh I dunno, a Walmart greeter and I don't understand why some people do that job BUT that doesn't make me  walmartgreeterphobic or a racist or anything other than...a Canadian who doesn't get why some people are Walmart Greeters.

With how far we as a society have gone to be PC, we've become hypocrites as a society, not tolerating anyone who doesn't agree anything and everything.


----------



## Strike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't think its fair to label someone as ignorant or intolerant just because they don't agree with a certain type of lifestyle.
> 
> I wouldn't want to be...an...oh I dunno, I Walmart greeter and I don't understand why some people do that job BUT that doesn't make me  walmartgreeterphobic or a racist or anything other than...a Canadian who doesn't get why some people are Walmart Greeters.
> 
> With how far we as a society have gone to be PC, we've become hypocrites as a society, not tolerating anyone who doesn't agree anything and everything.



It's not the disagreeing with something that makes a person ignorant.  It's the argument you use.  For example, arguing that having gay boyscout leaders would be dangerous to the organization for whatever stupid reason.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Perhaps.

I have no opinion "for or against" WRT this particular thread.  I am not glad, or offended, etc.  

I just think we are becoming to quick to label people and jump down their throat and call them intolerant and ignorant.  People have their own values and beliefs and they should all be respected, even if we don't agree with them as individuals.


----------



## Journeyman

But as we've seen, only agreeable opinions are "credible."    :not-again:



Again, I truly don't give a rat's buttock one way or another on this issue, but I'm an old-school fan of defending [and therefore thinking about] one's point of view.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I myself have to deal every day with my giveafukaphobia, the irrational fear that at some point I may actually start to care what two consenting adults do to each other behind a closed door.  Or an open one, if thats their bag.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Now normally I would come in here mentioning how the LGBT community says "don't treat us any different, we're just like you but let's have a parade/raise a flag/etc to show everyone how different we are" but not this time.
> 
> 
> Good work.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> What bothers me about the whole thing is that they spent 50 years asking to be treated like everyone else and as equals.
> 
> No problem. We obliged.
> 
> Now however, as soon as they were not special anymore, they want to be seen and heard as something else. Special days, special flags, special parades, etc.
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> 
> I just wish they'd make up their minds about what they want.



This is what I have a difficult time understanding.  It's going to sound like a baiting statement but it's not.

A group (not specific to the gay community, I mean any group) wants to be treated the same as everyone else (who wouldn't), they want to be equal and get the job done. Treat them like soldiers first. But then we bring specific attention to how they are different. Woman's week, aboriginals week, whatever else there is.  It's like trying to be the grey man but then volunteering for everything and making sure everyone knows your volunteering, kinda sorta. Isn't it?

I really don't understand it.  
I'm a white straight guy so I'm sure it's easier for me to shrug my shoulders and say no big deal because I've never really dealt with racism or discrimination but I find it's giving off mixed signals.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> And there's a sweat lodge on the base.



We need one of those in Petawawa.



			
				UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> I love how tolerance now means accepting/agreeing with the ideal and or person. It used to mean put up with and allow.


I totally agree. 




			
				Occam said:
			
		

> I hope it was important enough to lose about $15,000 in commissions on the sale of our existing home and the purchase of a new one, as well as the broker/manager being made aware of the reason we terminated our listing agreement with their brokerage.


Nice!




			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess letting our serving members garner international attention by marching, in uniform, in Toronto's (and other cities) Pride parades doesn't do that then?




Perhaps the gay community would garner even more support (or perhaps more tolerance?) if this wasn't so often the face of "gay pride".







I googled gay pride & gay pride Toronto pictures, it's difficult to take anything to do with gay pride parades seriously. 


I might be getting off topic though.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Just to throw another loop in....

How about seeing the flag raising not as a "look at us GLBT folks, we're different/special/whatever" message, but more of a "hey, GLBT folks are welcome here in the CF, too" message?  Especially given the history.


----------



## Strike

OZ - good post.  However I don't know if it's so much that different groups have been fighting to be treated the same. I think it's more that they don't want to be _discriminated against_ and want to have the _same rights_ as everyone else.  It's a very distinct and important difference.

As a woman I don't necessarily want to be treated the same as a man all the time.  I like having someone open a door for me or tell me I look nice when I'm dressed up and out of uniform (Guys telling guys they look good isn't all that common).  Just like a serving Muslim member needs the CoC to understand that their performance may not be the greatest during Ramadan because of fasting. Or a first generation Chinese Canadian needs the CoC to know about the multigenerational family living with them and how that will affect things like postings.

Everyone wants the same rights and doesn't want to be discriminated against but also needs to be recognized as different.


----------



## McG

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I googled gay pride & gay pride Toronto pictures, it's difficult to take anything to do with gay pride parades seriously.


It is nothing more garish than you would find googling Rio's Carnival.  I would not go to say that it makes it difficult to take BraIlians seriously.  If you do not like what you see, don't google it.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Ok sheep dog....

"actually If you think gays Should be treated less than equal Your homophobic"

That was not said, don't twist things. No one on this entire form has mentioned in the slightest that gays should not be treated as equal. Yet twice you seem to have insinuated that this has been said.


----------



## Tank Troll

MCG said:
			
		

> It is nothing more garish than you would find googling Rio's Carnival.  I would not go to say that it makes it difficult to take BraIlians seriously.  If you do not like what you see, don't google it.



From seeing Rio's carnival live and then seeing the picture that OZ posted and from other coverage I've seen of the pride parades they look like they are pretty much the same just different names.  :dunno:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Ok sheep dog....
> 
> "actually If you think gays Should be treated less than equal Your homophobic"
> 
> That was not said, don't twist things. No one on this entire form has mentioned in the slightest that gays should not be treated as equal. Yet twice you seem to have insinuated that this has been said.



I guess you know my stance now that I made it crystal fucking clear x2.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> It is nothing more garish than you would find googling Rio's Carnival.  I would not go to say that it makes it difficult to take BraIlians seriously.  If you do not like what you see, don't google it.



You obviously haven't googeled Rio Carnival and Gay Pride Toronto. Check it out and tell me they're in the same ball park.   (Just a warning, NSFW)


https://www.google.ca/search?q=rio+carnival&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4wy1UaLhDZTeyQGhu4Bo&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=640

https://www.google.ca/search?q=rio+carnival&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4wy1UaLhDZTeyQGhu4Bo&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=640#tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gay+pride+toronto&oq=gay+pride+toronto&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l6.5461.9497.0.9676.20.14.1.5.5.0.133.1267.10j4.14.0...0.0...1c.1.16.img.taicoAxfKCw&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc&fp=462926dcaa7e4e1e&biw=1366&bih=640

It's not a point about not liking what I see. My point is maybe the gay community should consider working on the sexual circus image that comes with "gay pride"




			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just to throw another loop in....
> 
> How about seeing the flag raising not as a "look at us GLBT folks, we're different/special/whatever" message, but more of a "hey, GLBT folks are welcome here in the CF, too" message?  Especially given the history.



Good point. I'd love for the CF to be a more comfortable place for our gay members to work in and more inviting to gay people interested in joining. Some of those guys look really frigging fit  ;D




			
				Strike said:
			
		

> OZ - good post.  However I don't know if it's so much that different groups have been fighting to be treated the same. I think it's more that they don't want to be _discriminated against_ and want to have the _same rights_ as everyone else.  It's a very distinct and important difference.


Good point as well, something to consider.



> As a woman I don't necessarily want to be treated the same as a man all the time.  I like having someone open a door for me or tell me I look nice when I'm dressed up and out of uniform


CF seems to be getting better for guys being able to say this to a female coworker without fear of the harassment hammer coming down on them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> From seeing Rio's carnival live and then seeing the picture that OZ posted and from other coverage I've seen of the pride parades they look like they are pretty much the same just different names.  :dunno:



I'm doing a lot of thinking on my stance (and post)
Maybe the latter (pride) just confuses me because I don't understand what that has to do with being gay. It seems overly sexual to me, I don't see the art of the former I guess?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here's part of my stance WRT the Gay Pride grap above:

If I walked around with my gear swinging around, I'd be arrested (as I should be).

WHY does it happening as part of a "gay pride parade" make it ok??

THAT is the shit that makes me madder than fuck and why I do NOT support that sick, perverted part of their 'community'.

Don't want to be treated different?  DON'T ACT DIFFERENT.  Fucktards.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Good post sums it up Succintly


----------



## Tank Troll

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Good post sums it up Succinctly



Fixed that for you, you should really spell obscure words correctly so us unwashed heathens can google it easier to find its meaning   :

plus it makes your attempt to look smart.............not so much


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> A group (not specific to the gay community, I mean any group) wants to be treated the same as everyone else (who wouldn't), they want to be equal and get the job done. Treat them like soldiers first. But then we    _they_ bring specific attention to how they are different. Woman's week, aboriginals week, whatever else there is.  It's like trying to be the grey man but then volunteering for everything and making sure everyone knows your volunteering, kinda sorta. Isn't it?



TFTFY


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Here's part of my stance WRT the Gay Pride grap above:
> 
> If I walked around with my gear swinging around, I'd be arrested (as I should be).
> 
> WHY does it happening as part of a "gay pride parade" make it ok??
> 
> THAT is the shit that makes me madder than fuck and why I do NOT support that sick, perverted part of their 'community'.
> 
> Don't want to be treated different?  DON'T ACT DIFFERENT.  Fucktards.




Agreed. The laws should be followed regardless of the surroundings/circumstances. Just like drunks during St Patties day or the naked Caribanners


----------



## muskrat89

> It is nothing more garish than you would find googling Rio's Carnival.  I would not go to say that it makes it difficult to take BraIlians seriously.  If you do not like what you see, don't google it.



Brazilians aren't clamoring for acceptance into mainstream society


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Brazilians aren't clamoring for acceptance into mainstream society



Maybe that is because they haven't had to fight to be treated fairly.


----------



## muskrat89

You're so vested in making *your* point, you're not seeing anyone else's.

"You catch more flies with honey, than vinegar" is my point. When you're trying to make the point that "you're the same as everyone else", the Pride parades don't work on me, personally.


----------



## Remius

Wow.  It's funny how this thread has derailed somewhat.  The MWO in question requested he be allowed to raise the pride flag on one day during pride week.  Now we are comparing that to the Toronto gay pride parade?

I'm no fan of how sexualised the Toronto parade thing is.  it's a bit of an embarrassment I find in this day and age but whatever.  

What the MWO requested and what the CF approved are in no way comparable.  I heard his interview on the radio and he had nothing but good things to say about the CF, and it's tolerance for diversity.  The CF got some well needed PR out of it with Joe Public, we likely will have attracted some good talent through this as well.

I'm not sure why this has to be criticized.

Newsflash:  Everyone won with this.


----------



## mariomike

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of how sexualised the Toronto parade thing is.  it's a bit of an embarrassment I find in this day and age but whatever.



Not that there's anything wrong with the Pride Parade, but I don't miss working it. 

Edit to add.

As in, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj3VphK9AMk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yes there is something wrong with it.  Guys walking around in public in the buck.   :


----------



## Jacky Tar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yes there is something wrong with it.  Guys walking around in public in the buck.   :



And if it was girls walking around in public in the buck?


----------



## Remius

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> And if it was girls walking around in public in the buck?



The Gay pride Parade has plenty of both.


----------



## mariomike

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> And if it was girls walking around in public in the buck?



That is on a different day.  
http://www.pridetoronto.com/festival/parade--marches


----------



## Jacky Tar

Crantor said:
			
		

> The Gay pride Parade has plenty of both.



True, but I don't hear him(?) complaining about women strutting their stuff in the buff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My wife and I know ppl, have friends, etc who are gay and lesbian.  Some of them were at our wedding.  Others we've spent time with sitting around a campfire at the cabin at night having a whole bunch of laughs.  Stuff like that; normal stuff.  They come to our place, we've been to theirs.  I just wanted it known that I have no issues there, to me they are friends, humans with the same right to enjoy their life as they chose.  I will also say, years ago I did NOT have this opinion but thankfully I have outgrown some of the ideas that were common where I grew up.

However, at none of these things did any of them say "hey, you know, because I am gay, I am going to strut around in the raw to celebrate!".  Why?  It is not normal human behaviour, atleast not in the Canada I've lived in.  

Now, one couple we are good friends with are a female couple.  I can imagine how they'd react if the next time they were at our place , or me at theirs, if I suddenly started slow marching in my Birth-Issued Mess Kit, because despite the fact that they are females and a couple, they'd find it offensive _and_ weird.  I am sure they would, and rightfully so.  I also wonder what they'd think if I showed up at their house someday made up like a weird looking, human Care Bear.  

Same-sex sexual orientation is not offensive to me.  If I was walking to my car at the mall and a straight couple were going at it on the hood of a car, yup I'd be offended by that too.  Some people might not.  I have my own values and beliefs and they are pretty normal and commmon in our society AFAIK.  Example, you have clothes on when you are walking the streets.

You can't act differently then DEMAND to be accepted, and treated "like everyone else".   If there was a Straight Pride Parade and there was dudes in it doing the Full Monty, I'd be equally as offended. 



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Wow.  It's funny how this thread has derailed somewhat.  The MWO in question requested he be allowed to raise the pride flag on one day during pride week.  Now we are comparing that to the Toronto gay pride parade?
> 
> What the MWO requested and what the CF approved are in no way comparable.  I heard his interview on the radio and he had nothing but good things to say about the CF, and it's tolerance for diversity.  The CF got some well needed PR out of it with Joe Public, we likely will have attracted some good talent through this as well.
> 
> I'm not sure why this has to be criticized.



I've gone thru the thread again and I don't see any relation to the event on CFB Edmonton being linked to the obscene aspects of the Pride Parades, etc.  I don't think anyone is comparing the two events.  If there was any impression on my part that I was suggesting it, please let me clarify by saying I see no relation or link between the CFB Edmonton flag raising or the folks involved, and the follow on stuff from the Pride events.

WRT my belief that some of the acts and displays in the Toronto Pride pics, etc are perverted and disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated;  I would say the same thing if I was at the beach and 50 people went walking by in the raw, straight couples, gay couples, lesbian couples, circus clowns, whatever.  

It is not their sexual orientationt that is the issue.  It is the way they act.  Simple.  When it comes to being a pervert, sicko, weirdo, etc I don't care what part of Canadian society you come from and its not because you are a rubber boot wearing smelt fishermen who speaks 9 languages I look at you with that "WTF" look.  Its because you are only wearing rubber boots in public and I don't want to see your EIS.


WRT to the orginal part of this thread,  I see no harm at all with the Rainbow Flag being flown at CFB Edmonton, or any base.  The benefit to the CF and our society, as a whole, might not be tangible to me as an individual, but it might be to others, and if so good.   Job well done.


----------



## upandatom

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hardly new; their flag has been flying over one of the gates at CFB Kingston for years now.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  That's the RCEME flag?!   ???  They're the same, aren't they?
> 
> :-[  Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ;D  <--- It's a joke



BAZINGAH


----------



## upandatom

Agreed that all won in this matter. 
Nothing wrong with this. 

It is understandable to the common Canadian that is hardly associated with the CF that the LBGT community is not welcomed or accepted. Many civilians may see or be stuck in the US Military mentality of  the "Dont ask dont tell policy" due to movies and American news networks. This throws it out there for the Canadian Public that we dont have that stance on the matter.  

Does anyone know of how the American Military handles it now? Do they still have the "Dont ask Dont tell policy?"

I know that that sounds horrible how I put that, but it isnt intended that way. 

And Kudos to the MWO that started this.


----------



## The Bread Guy

upandatom said:
			
		

> .... Does anyone know of how the American Military handles it now? *Do they still have the "Dont ask Dont tell policy?*" ....


Nope - and here's what the USMC did after the ban was lifted.


----------



## DirtyDog

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> No, you're not, you're just displaying ignorance, not fear.


_In your opinion_


----------



## DexOlesa

Good post Eye in the sky. When my gay friends say the pride parades go too far....maybe they do. Milpoints on the way


----------



## NinerDomestic

I am gay and think this is ridiculous. The fact that the flag was saluted makes it even more so.


----------



## DAA

upandatom said:
			
		

> It is understandable to the common Canadian that is hardly associated with the CF that the LBGT community is not welcomed or accepted. Many civilians may see or be stuck in the US Military mentality of  the "Dont ask dont tell policy" due to movies and American news networks. This throws it out there for the Canadian Public that we dont have that stance on the matter.



Actually, way back in the late 80's early 90's when the CF began to change the policy, the question that had to be asked by recruiters was not "are you homosexual" but "are you a currently practicing homosexual".  So you could be lesbian or gay but you just couldn't be a "practicing lesbian or gay".......     :facepalm:


----------



## unit91

Are they going raise a black panther flag and an Arian flag too?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

:facepalm:


----------



## Remius

unit91 said:
			
		

> Are they going raise a black panther flag and an Arian flag too?




I suppose if they write a memo requesting....wait....what?  Did you actually write that? 

   I don't know what to say to that...


----------



## daftandbarmy

NinerDomestic said:
			
		

> I am gay and think this is ridiculous. The fact that the flag was saluted makes it even more so.



Careful where you say that or the PC police might get you!  ;D


----------



## Tank Troll

unit91 said:
			
		

> Are they going raise a black panther flag and an Arian flag too?



Really?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

unit91 said:
			
		

> Are they going raise a black panther flag and an Arian flag too?



You sir, are a fuckwit.


----------



## Strike

NinerDomestic said:
			
		

> I am gay and think this is ridiculous. The fact that the flag was saluted makes it even more so.



The fact that you registered today and used this thread as your first post makes me hesitate to completely believe you.  Sorry.  I smell a whiff of troll.


----------



## anglo-saxon

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Sorry Kirsten but having a little trouble comprehending what raising a Gay Pride flag on the base actually does. IMO its opening a can of worms, where does it stop, every ethnic minority will want their flag raised on a Canadian Forces Base because now a precedence has been set. I have no problem whatsoever with these groups but I'm pretty sure the Canadian Flag by itself is already all encompassing of race, gender and sexual orientation.
> 
> Just my opinion.



Extremely well said. I grow weary of the squeeky wheels!!


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Don't worry, during Christmas I requesting a nativity scene. :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Don't worry, during Christmas I requesting a nativity scene. :nod:



I have a strong feeling the request will be denied.  :facepalm:


----------



## MikeL

Petawawa has a nativity scene on the high school across from the Canex on base.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Petawawa has a nativity scene on the high school across from the Canex on base.



There goes my plan, maybe a "Merry Christmas" sign/flag... The stew is starting to smell good. (stirring the pot)


----------



## Jarnhamar

I thought this was an interesting situation.   (I joked about it a few years ago but actually heard from a friend it become an issue a few months ago)


Troops are on a tasking and staying in hard shacks in single rooms.  They get told females are not allowed in male rooms and vice versa. What about if they're just watching a movie? No, it's frat.  [ which is weird because the actual wording of the fraternization policy speaks about relationships with members of other countries armed forces or local civilians ]. 

Is it alright if guys are in guys room watching a movie? Yes that's no big deal, just not a guy and a girl.  Conjecture; the chain of command thinks the male and female soldier will have sex.

So what if both male soldiers (or both female soldiers)  are gay?   Are gay male soldiers allowed to have females in their rooms?  Are two gay soldiers not allowed in the same room at the same time?  Is this an archaic rule from a CoC that is trying to babysit adults?


----------



## chrisf

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is this an _This is an_ archaic rule from a CoC that is trying to babysit adults?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Just like Mom used to say, " You can have your girlfriend in your room, but you have to leave the door open." ;D


----------



## Loachman

Ask whoever issued this decree, preferably in a public setting.

It would perhaps cause some thought.

Or mental self-destruction, like in early Star Trek episodes wherein the malfunctioning supercomputer was fed an impossible question.


----------



## Rifleman62

What do you do on a Winter FTX? Have separate tents for gender?

I don't think so. Not since the 1960's in the Militia.


----------



## NSDreamer

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What do you do on a Winter FTX? Have separate tents for gender?
> 
> I don't think so. Not since the 1960's in the Militia.


I can't help but picture the following situation:
Sweet snowy winter, Wainwright Training Area:
A Sgt and 2Lt meet at night to discuss platoon lines on an exercise...

Sgt: Sir we don't have enough tent's to split them by Gender?|
2Lt: Sgt? Not enough troops, damn what was the RQ thinking. There's no helping it, we'll have to hooch.
Sgt: Sir? *not believing he heard it right*
2Lt: Don't worry Sgt, you can sleep in my tent with me, we're both men.
The Next Da
WO: Anyone seen the 2Lt today?
Sgt: Haven't seen him since last night Sir, he said he wanted to sleep in a hooch.
WO: Hrm, bloody stupid, he's probably buried under a foot under snow now...


----------



## Loachman

If _only_ it was as simple as splitting by gender in order to satisfyJarnhamar's leadership.

There would have to be male heterosexual tents, individual male homosexual tents, female heterosexual tents, and individual female homosexual tents. One each male and female homosexual could be paired off to save some tentage, unless that creeps them out. What, however, does this leadership do with biexuals? Or transexuals? Would pre-op male-to-females and female-to-males have to be kept apart, or should they be kept together? I may have missed some possibilities.

This is stuff to blow a dinosaur's tiny brain.


----------



## Old Sweat

We have gone from a query about troops in a shack with single rooms and some control freak over controlling to fretting about operational detachments in the field. In the Sandbox mixed detachments shared the same austere accommodation and the common sense of the Canadian soldier at war was able to make it work.


----------



## kratz

The staff in one base had a good laugh when I arrive on a visit.
I was more than half unpacked and discovered I was in the shacks with a female,
two person room.  I was repacking when she arrived, we both smiled at the fax pax
and I returned to accommodations. The rancour I endured from the staff was 
uncalled for due to their "mistake" but it was finally sorted it out.


----------



## Pusser

I am reminded of a situation on basic training years ago (when I was a young single guy full of hormones).  We were in a mixed platoon, but it was still in the days of separate standards (e.g. women were allowed lighter packs and were still prohibited in certain occupations).  We had just come to the end of a night move and we were exhausted.  It was also a moonless night, so it was pitch black in the Borden training area.  While trying to get something sorted, I switched on a flashlight and got an eyefull of a young lady in my platoon who was changing her shirt.  I said, "sorry!"  She said, "don't worry about it.  It's nothing you've never seen before," (albeit not that particular pair).  "OK" I said, and we both went to ground (in separate hooches) as soon as we could.

Notwithstanding some films, there's nothing sexy or erotic about sexual relations in an army field scenario, especially if you haven't bathed recently and there are mosquitos and poison ivy everywhere.


----------



## dangerboy

The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.


----------



## dimsum

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.



Exactly.  

As an aside, the Norwegian army has trialled unisex dorm rooms.

http://time.com/36484/norwegian-army-unisex-dorms/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> There would have to be male heterosexual tents, individual male homosexual tents, female heterosexual tents, and individual female homosexual tents. One each male and female homosexual could be paired off to save some tentage, unless that creeps them out. What, however, does this leadership do with biexuals? Or transexuals? Would pre-op male-to-females and female-to-males have to be kept apart, or should they be kept together? I may have missed some possibilities.


You'd need a rainbow of tentage ....
Seriously, have to agree with this short & sweet summary:


			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and *shows we don't trust our soldiers*.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> As an aside, the Norwegian army has trialled unisex dorm rooms.
> 
> http://time.com/36484/norwegian-army-unisex-dorms/


And in that experiment ....


> .... the women so far report a cut in sexual harassment.
> 
> According to Ulla-Britt Lilleaas, co-author of the report "The Army: the vanguard, rear guard and battlefield of equality”, the women reported that sharing a room helped make them "one of the boys" ....


I know that Canada =/= Norway, but intriguing result nonetheless.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If shared accommodations are necessary, just keep the troops on a diet heavy in legumes and onions.  That should take all the potential romance out of any room.


----------



## OldSolduer

dangerboy said:
			
		

> The idea of banning people to visit other rooms is an archaic rule and shows we don't trust our soldiers.  We can put them on a OP with live ammunition and go to sleep trusting our lives to them, but don't trust them to follow in a building in garrison.  Having been on course as a candidate and staff I found found that if people want to get together they will ban them from the rooms they will find other places.  Poison ivy will not stop them, I have seen troops with rashes in key locations.



well said. The very senior leadership of the CAF hasn't trusted anyone under the rank of BGen for thirty years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And in that experiment ....I know that Canada =/= Norway, but intriguing result nonetheless.



Actually, having lived through the "civilizing" effect of the implementation of mixed crew at sea, I am not surprised at all. The reverse would have surprised me.

Note that they are not putting one man and one woman in a double room, but four men and two women in a six bunk room. The four men will self police their comments and attitude towards the two women in front of the other men, or else get policed by the other three if they slip - not to mention that the women themselves might just put them in their place in front of their mates, which they would not appreciate.

On the other hand, in the classic "divided" system, the fewer women (in my experience it is never a 50/50 ratio) were in a separate wing from their male platoon mates, to which the "male" member of the platoon had no access, and so, were often neglected in the post work days impromptu meetings/evening activities organizing and general post day fat-chewing that went on amongst the "guys" before even going at the agreed "rendez-vous" with the female members of the group . In the Norwegian new system, they are all physically co-located and this barrier disappears, so I am not surprised that the female members find themselves better integrated into the group dynamics.


----------



## Messorius

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, having lived through the "civilizing" effect of the implementation of mixed crew at sea, I am not surprised at all. The reverse would have surprised me.
> 
> Note that they are not putting one man and one woman in a double room, but four men and two women in a six bunk room. The four men will self police their comments and attitude towards the two women in front of the other men, or else get policed by the other three if they slip - not to mention that the women themselves might just put them in their place in front of their mates, which they would not appreciate.
> 
> On the other hand, in the classic "divided" system, the fewer women (in my experience it is never a 50/50 ratio) were in a separate wing from their male platoon mates, to which the "male" member of the platoon had no access, and so, were often neglected in the post work days impromptu meetings/evening activities organizing and general post day fat-chewing that went on amongst the "guys" before even going at the agreed "rendez-vous" with the female members of the group . In the Norwegian new system, they are all physically co-located and this barrier disappears, so I am not surprised that the female members find themselves better integrated into the group dynamics.



I was the only woman on a 45 person course last year.  For whatever reason, rules at this location were no  mixing  in rooms with the opposite sex unless course staff was present. Even having the door open(which was all that was required on a different base the year prior)wasn't acceptable.  Constant effort to not be forgotten about, getting timings, next to no social time with my section or platoon. You want to talk about a shit situation for morale.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Messorius said:
			
		

> I was the only woman on a 45 person course last year.  For whatever reason, rules at this location were no  mixing  in rooms with the opposite sex unless course staff was present. Even having the door open(which was all that was required on a different base the year prior)wasn't acceptable.  Constant effort to not be forgotten about, getting timings, next to no social time with my section or platoon. You want to talk about a shit situation for morale.



That really sucks for females trying to fit in and be treated the same as everyone else.

Last year I witnessed male soldiers getting crammed 3 and 4 to crew-tents in order to accommodate females having their own private tents.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That really sucks for females trying to fit in and be treated the same as everyone else.
> 
> Last year I witnessed male soldiers getting crammed 3 and 4 to crew-tents in order to accommodate females having their own private tents.



This effort to be "correct" will cost us in the long term. 

I've said it before.....20 years of briefing won't change basic biology.


----------



## ModlrMike

I must say that in all my time in Fd Amb, we never segregated females unless there was a large enough number to do so; which seldom occurred. For the most part, we had co-ed tenting. It was never an issue. Troops were expected to behave with decorum and consideration, which they always seemed to do. The only time it ever got to be an issue was when I had a detachment or UMS attached to another unit. Again, for the most part I was able to get my way and have all my troops bunk in the UMS lines without consideration for gender distribution. 

This issue is only a problem because we make it so. There are ways to accommodate males and females together that preserve everyone's dignity and privacy. As someone else said, the troops will police themselves.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It's funny (not really) how it's an issue in garrison but come time in the field, say winter ex it's a none issue.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest:


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will be asked by the House defence committee to review dishonourable discharge records for Canadian Forces members kicked out of the military for being gay.
> 
> The committee voted unanimously Tuesday to support a motion introduced by NDP defence and LGBT critic Randall Garrison to request that Sajjan authorize National Defence Ombudsman Gary Walbourne to review the 800 to 1,000 cases of Canadians who currently hold dishonourable discharge records from the military dating back from before the practice of punishing members for their sexuality was banned in 1992.
> 
> While the Liberal government indicated last spring it was “considering” an official apology to gay members dishonourably discharged for their sexuality, little has been heard about that plan since. Garrison said his own efforts to request a review of those still carrying that black mark on their service records have gone unanswered.
> 
> “I wrote to the minister of Defence on May 12 asking him to authorize this motion and have received no response,” Garrison said. “That’s why I’m putting this motion before committee.” ...


----------



## Blackadder1916

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest:
> 
> . . . to review dishonourable discharge records for Canadian Forces members kicked out of the military for being gay.



Not wanting to offend or disrupt valid discussion, but again my pedantic gene compels me to bring notice that the terminology used is one usually associated with the United States military.  In the Canadian Forces, individuals are not "discharged" but "released".  We They also don't "dishonourably" release anyone, but however, do release "honourably".  The terminology used is:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-15.page


> 4) Where an officer or non-commissioned member is released, the notation on his record of service shall be as follows:
> a.  if he is released under Item 1(a), the notation "Dismissed with Disgrace for Misconduct" or "Dismissed for Misconduct", as applicable;
> b.  if he is released under Item 1 for any reason other than Item 1(a), the notation "Released for Misconduct";
> c.  where he is released under Item 2, the notation "Service Terminated"; or
> d.  where he is released under Item 3, 4 or 5, the notation "Honourably Released".



For those on these means who don't remember those days, the applicable regulation was CFAO 19-20 Homosexuality - Sexual Abnormality Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal.  In that CFAO, the following is the part that indicates what release item will apply.  (in the copy used for the following quote, the last amendment is 1976)



> Release Item
> 8.     Normally, the member should be released under item 5(d) of the table to QR&O 15.01.  However, if the member is to be released as a direct result of a conviction by a civil court or service tribunal, consideration shall be given effecting the release under item 2(a) of the table to QR&O 15.01.
> 
> 9.     When a member is convicted by a civil court under the Criminal Court, e.g. Section 150 (Incest), Section 155 (Buggery or Bestiality), Section 156 (Indecent Assault on a Male), or Section 157 (Gross Indecency), the certificate of conviction and all the facts pertaining to the conviction shall be forwarded in accordance with QR&O 19.62.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I wonder if next, they will review the files of Ministers of Defence dismissed for attending at well known German strip clubs  [


----------

