Where I stand is this. I have no problem what other people do in private. Indeed, I shall go further than this and state that I prefer not to see it as an issue at all. I cannot say much more, but there are people close to me who may or may not be gay and it makes bugger all difference. In fact, if they are, they will probably need some extra love because they are going to find that not everybody thinks the same way.
What I don't accept is militant gay stuff or people who glory in perversion (gay or straight) and then expect us to treat them like heroes and martyrs. I absolutely hate militancy of all kinds, that in your face you have to accept me crap. I have to accept nobody, unless I want to. I also believe that gays get treated with kid gloves (it is almost impossible not to get into double entendres) in some quarters, and in the interests of true equality, they should be able to take the shit just as much as anybody. (Mark Oaten take note) Personally, I abhor loud outpourings of gayness, or fox-huntingness, or animal rightsness, or blackness, or greenness or indeed party politics and sectarianism. Stonewall and their ilk are to me an anathema, as is the fact the London Gay Men's Choir gets government funding. The idea of men in sequinned jock straps parading through Brighton to "celebrate the LGBT community" is frankly sick making.
And so it is that we come to the news that the good ol' C of E is inching into the 19th Century. According to Ruth Gledhill's report in The Times:
Senior bishops in the Lords have told The Times that they will support an amendment to the Equality Bill next month that will lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. The amendment would remove the legislative prohibition on blessings of homosexual couples and open the door to the registration of civil partnerships in churches, synagogues, mosques and all other religious premises.
I applaud this move with my whole heart, for there is no such thing as the sin of Love.
5 comments:
In a world where love seems to be in such short supply, it is hardly right to condemn people for loving in a way that we don't, ourselves, go along with. The thing I object to is the way that it is no longer good enough to tolerate homosexuality (which I do, and wholeheartedly) but we must 'celebrate' it, and if we choose not to celebrate it but just accept it we are held to be homophobic. I'm not homophobic - I just wish they would all shut up.
On your other point, I have never been mistaken for gay, and nor have I ever consciously been hit on by a gay man. Either I completely lack any sensitivity in these matters, or I am as ugly as fuck. Or possibly both.
I am, of course, offended by this and will seek redress in the courts.
If ever there was such an evil, twisted and subversive use of a word, "celebrate" in this context, is it.
Maybe one day, I shall tell all the stories, of how I was perpetually the target of "casual enquiries", including being asked if I was "trade" Still, when your name gets written on toilet walls (in Art College for God's sake) ending with "is queer" you get to a point of some empathy, or even, outrage.
But not OutRage, obviously :)
Indeed,indeed.
Good post Ged. I agree with you. I don't care what sexual orientation a person is, but I hate the Stonewall and their agenda.
Long ago and far away I was propositioned by someone that I worked with. I turned him down and then had to spend the night in casualty with him after he tried to top himself. Shame? Guilt? remorse?
I don't know.
I'm glad times have changed. Now can we please get on with our lives?
Post a Comment