Lets dispell this gay myth

[GO!!!]

Well, I think we are hitting the flogging a dead horse stage, but I feel compelled to point out a few more things before leaving.

"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."

Equal protection and benefit of the law, and race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability â “ soooo â “ since sexual preference is not covered â “ I assume that you see gays as â “ disabled? Even I don't' say that! And it states "protection of the law" Not "employment in any capacity they see fit"

Words twice â “ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â “ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF.

Trinity â “ I don't care about lesbians â “ I have been using the terms â Å“gayâ ? and â Å“homosexualsâ ? interchangeably.

IMHO â “ there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway â “ but that's another thread

Also â “ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

As for the units with gay members â “ I would be curious to know just which positions that these individuals occupied (Platoon leaders down is what I should have specified) This is where the â Å“teamâ ? becomes the most important.

 

[Fry]

IMHO - there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway - but thatâ ™s another thread

Hmm.. THis is gonna make a few people angry, lol... Here we go again!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on that, I'd just like to see what reasons you have for saying that?

 

[Drummie]

Also â “ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

I think Padres are a very imprtant part of any unit, and the CF in general. And since when do you get to pick 'who's on the team'?

 

[Infanteer]

Well, I think we are hitting the flogging a dead horse stage

That's for sure.

Equal protection and benefit of the law, and race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability â “ soooo â “ since sexual preference is not covered â “ I assume that you see gays as â “ disabled? Even I don't' say that! And it states "protection of the law" Not "employment in any capacity they see fit"

Read the passage from the Charter again:

"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."

Notice what I highlighted -   kinda like a Section 129, eh?   "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which you brought up) would not fly, period (I'm basing this on the current interpretive trend - that's what Charter politics are about).  The military cannot discriminate on someone's suitability based upon sexual preference (and I haven't seen any real compelling reason in this thread convincing me why they should).  If you think you can, you're free to take up a Charter Challenge, but try and guess how that would fly in the Supreme Court.

Words twice â “ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â “ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF.

I wasn't comparing "rights not to be offended", I was saying that the Charter Rights of Canadian citizens (the one that states that discrimination is not kosher) easily trumps your personal notion of "personal offence".

A) You should have realized by now that in our military, you don't get to pick and choose your teammates.

B) Quit talking about being offended in an Infantry unit, you're starting to sound like a SHARP student.

IMHO â “ there should be no women in the Cbt Arms anyway â “ but that's another thread

You think?

Also â “ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

I'll let the Padre deal with this one, but I suspect you might be selling him short (considering he was an Infantry NCO).

Anyways, the fingers are starting to point, so this one is getting close to expiration.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Trinity]

Also â “ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

Close Infanteer.... but thanks for the support until I could post.

Yeah... thanks for that GO.  I spent 10 years with the infantry as an NCO but as a Medic.  I have experienced
all aspects of the infantry including leadership roles.  I was no doubt part of the team.  And don't come back
and spew some garbage that I wasn't because I was a medic because there are enough members of my old
unit here to disagree with you. What they did, I did. 

Quite possibly it is because I've had this much time with the infantry and experienced gays in the military is why
I felt the issue needed to be dispelled.  Incidently.. you keep pushing the INFANTRY side of it.  What about all
the other trades who don't have the same need of tight knit association.

Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you

How belittling is that!!  Important to me? Even if I had no previous experience, who gives you the
right to speak on behalf of all combat arms?  By saying signifcant to you, you are implying that its not
significant to the rest of the troops. By saying that you make me sound like some narcissistic who thinks
he's important when he's not.  Just because you don't see the necesity for a padre or our input
in said environment doesn't mean it isn't important.

You asked for proof of gays serving in combat units - Teddy Ruxpin gave it.
You claimed it was your right not to be serving with them - you were proven wrong by the Charter of rights.
Now you resorting to personal attacks - because i'm not infanty I can't weigh in on the topic because i'm skewed?

At this point, I think you are talking less from fact and more out your Alpha Sierra Sierra. 

Address the issues and facts of the argument.  Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument and bear
no weight on the issue. Infanteer has already threatened to close this thread if it becomes personal, which would
be a shame.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Words twice â “ if everyone else has the â Å“rightâ ? not to be offended at work â “ why don't I? Sexual preference is not covered under the CRF.

I do not understand why the mere presence of gays in your unit might offend you. Are you afraid they will hit on you? Or perhaps that they won't find you any more attractive than the women who don't? Or are you afraid that you will actually be seduced by one?

What exactly is the point where you get to be offensive towards gays simply because they exist and may wish to be in your line of work, yet you want the Charter to protect you from them?

 

[48Highlander]

Also â “ don't confuse membership in a tight knit unit with being attached to them padre. You are not a member of the team, you are attached to us, for use when required. Your experience â “ while undoubtedly important/significant to you, is skewed in this respect.

As has been pointed out, padres in general are pretty damn important to many of your "tight-knit" teammates.  This man in particular though was a very important part of our team before he became a padre, so don't go making assumptions about his experience.

All the rest of your points have been adressed by others already so I'll refrain from commenting.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I do not understand why the mere presence of gays in your unit might offend you. Are you afraid they will hit on you? Or perhaps that they won't find you any more attractive than the women who don't? Or are you afraid that you will actually be seduced by one?

What exactly is the point where you get to be offensive towards gays simply because they exist and may wish to be in your line of work, yet you want the Charter to protect you from them?

    I think conduct, not orientation is the important factor.  If specific gay's behaviour is causing problems in unit cohesion then that should be addressed on a case by case basis, just as other cases of objectionable and unprofessional conduct between members of whatever orientation is dealt with.  I was in when women were intergrated to the combat arms, and while I can recall one or two instances where the women were the problem, by in large, the "conduct unbecoming" was comming from a few dinosaurs who confused their own personal prejudice with the good  of the regiment, and the forces that they serve.  I have a feeling that it is the same with the gays.  If you are good enough to meet the same standards that I do, and share the same commitment that I do, I could care less if you like men, women, or goats, as long as your conduct in uniform remains professional.

 

[GO!!!]

My references to the Infantry are due to the fact that that is where my experience lies, and I would'nt want to overstep my bounds - now would I?

The charter does not defend gays - period - no where is "sexual preference" covered.

At the risk of sounding unpopular - I will stick to my guns in regards to the experience of attachments to Inf. Coys and Pls. My opinion, based on experience. Attachments are always there when the going is good, and sometimes when it's not.

And since when do we get to pick who's on the team - we don't - but the rest of the team can sure as hell influence it.

And finally - why does the gay myth need to be addressed at all?

 

[c4th]

And finally - why does the gay myth need to be addressed at all?

Yup, the horse is dead.   Anyone out there want tp lock this one up?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yup, the horse is dead.   Anyone out there want tp lock this one up?

What he said, but LoudeR!

 

[Infanteer]

Du...du...du - another one bites the dust!

Wait, wasn't Freddy Mercury gay!