Gay Male Sexuality Is Under Attack From Without AND Within

There are racist gay men. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, given racism is pretty entrenched across the human species. I once had to call an ex-boyfriend to come "rescue" me from a date with a man ranting on about how awful black people are. They are out there.

Owen Jones has written a comment piece on racism among gay men. Needless to say it has conflated some actual racism with some personal sexual preferences. When you are on a "dating" app (or back in the days of Gaydar for oldsters like me) you are presenting what you are and what you want out into the world in the hopes of finding others who share, or mirror, your desires. Perhaps you only want intelligent men for a long term relationship. Maybe you desire men with big arms for a fling. It could be you find only white men attractive. These are not necessarily stating you hate stupid people, people with smaller arms or non-white people. But it is saying that for the purposes of a relationship (or just sex) you have certain desires in mind.

Sexuality is a beautifully complex thing. I'm very much broad-minded about what I find attractive. I find a lot of looks, attitudes and minds attractive for many different reasons. But I also have a couple of "types" of men that I find EXTREMELY attractive. And a few (leather wearers beware) I find extremely unattractive. I couldn't change those desires even if I wanted to. So demanding that people become open to finding things attractive that they don't is a bit much. Should gay men starting trying to find women attractive as to not do so would be misogynistic? I think not!!!!

Unfortunately this sort of ludicrous suggestion helps others pretend racism doesn't exist. Focus on the real stigmas and racism going on out there and stop policing sexuality.

He also finds objectifying certain races problematic. I objectify men with big arms. I can thus quite understand someone objectifying men for another facet of their personality or appearance. The idea it is racist to find a certain skin tone attractive but okay to find only a certain gender attractive is messy at best.

Owen Jones is wandering extremely close to "conversion therapy" territory and towards suggesting male homosexuality itself is problematic. Must we all be pansexuals? Is that where we are heading? Is there no value in individuality?

People with similar mindsets also oppose the "culture" of muscle worship among gay men. This culture is much overblown, and is mainly limited to "the scene". Unfortunately many gay men in prominent positions are part of that scene and forget that out here in the real world male homosexuality is a lot more diverse. Considering muscle worship to be unhealthy due to the body image problems it may cause is a bit much when we encourage bear/cub culture at the same time.

The real issue is this sort of criticism has been internalised by many gay men who nod along in shame when some progressive comes along to browbeat them back into line. It is long past time we stop cow-towing to these puritanical busy-bodies who not only want to get into our bedrooms but want to get into our fantasises.

I would say "we didn't beat conservative busy-bodies only to allow progressive ones to control our sexuality" but can't as we haven't beat the conservative busy-bodies. Oh we thought we had but they've been quietly beavering away... Our Government has many plans to block porn, from adults as well as children, of which this is just the latest example.

If you don't want Christians telling you who to fuck, you'd better start stopping everyone else making similar demands. Otherwise we'll be back to the 1980s in no time at all.

Don't just nod ashamedly in the corner. Fight for the right to love and fuck however you damn well want to. Resist the puritans at every turn!

Islam Is A Harmful Ideology

Homeopathy is a harmful ideology. Sure, the majority of the time it is harmless. You take a homeopathic remedy for a common cold, some aches and pains or a phantom illness and nothing too bad is going to happen. But sometimes it has serious consequences and the general credulity of homeopathic believers has a negative effect on the advance of logic, reason and good sense in our society.

I hope no one can infer from the above that I wish ill upon those who believe in homeopathic remedies. I'd love for them to recognise the danger they put themselves and others in and embrace a more rigorous approach to making medical related life choices. If they don't... what am I going to do about it? It is a choice they make and I'm powerless to do anything about the choices of others beyond persuasion.

Yet criticising Islam seems to be a lot more difficult. Granted, there's a lot more evidence of real danger to Muslims from violent reaction against them than in the case of homeopaths. But that still doesn't mean Islam isn't a harmful ideology. Sure, the majority of the time most Muslims are just as nice/bad/flawed/generous etc. as the rest of us. You pray to Allah a few times a day then get on with your job and nothing too bad is going to happen. But sometimes Islamic teachings have serious consequences and the general credulity of believers has a negative effect on the advance of logic, reason and good sense in our society.

I hope no one infers from the above I wish ill upon those who believe Mohammed was a prophet of Allah. I'd love for them to recognise the danger they put themselves and others in and embrace a more rigorous approach to their study of ancient texts.  If they don't... what am I going to do about it? It is a choice they make and I'm powerless to do anything about the choices of others beyond persuasion.

But when a homeopath allows their child to die because of their beliefs or someone murders another human being because of the influence of Islam in their lives, I'm going to criticise those beliefs and the terrible effect they have on society.

I'm troubled that those who will tell you that toxic masculinity is a major problem in society and that we can't avoid being sexist/homophobic/ableist/transphobic etc. due to our socialisation (even if we are brought up by the most liberal of parents) will go out of their way to suggest that an Islam influenced upbringing has absolutely NO connection to the homophobic murders in Orlando. This is the sort of hypocrisy that makes people think a Trump victory would be a good thing for America.

I'm not one of them by the way, Trump is awful, but until we start actually calling out Islam in the way we do Christianity then we're no closer to a saner society.

Homosexuality Is Not A Sin

If I was a gay/bi teenage liberal just coming to terms with my sexuality, reading some of the stuff posted by defenders of Tim Farron would probably be enough to send me scuttling back in to the closet.

So to them I want to be very, very clear: homosexuality is not a sin. It is a not a "condition", let alone one that requires other's compassion. It is not a "second-best" option. It is not inferior. The quality of love between two men (I can't speak for others but I'm sure it is also the same between two women) is not one iota less than that between a man and a woman.

I've seen Lib Dems suggest a Christian's distaste to homosexuality to be akin to most people's distaste for heroin users. I.e. "I believe in the right of someone to inject themselves with heroin but I think it is bad for them and I'd argue that they shouldn't". Well isn't that a beautiful message to send out to young gay and bi people? "You have the right to do what you do, but it's a sin!"

My love for my other half is NOT equivalent in anyway to the love a heroin user has for a needle. And I will not sit silently by whilst that sort of message is sent out to vulnerable young people.

Now Tim Farron hasn't said the above, thankfully, so I'm only directing about 10% of my anger at him for his failure to be clearer. I am disturbed though by those defending the concept of believing homosexuality is a sin.

Some have said "We're liberals, we should support people holding beliefs we find objectionable as long as they harm no one else". Totally agree. But I wouldn't want someone who thinks Africans are an inferior race leading a party I was a member of, regardless of the fact he supports their equality 100% in his public life.

A disturbing number of people, both heterosexual and other, seem to accept the idea that homosexuality "isn't ideal". They very much support our rights and freedoms. But in their heart of hearts they really do not accept us.

My message to LGBT young people is this... THERE IS NOTHING SINFUL ABOUT LOVING SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER. Nothing. Not one thing. Our love is not inferior to anybody else's . We must never forget that.

Further reading.

Straight Men Are Not Our Enemy

Maybe it is a hold over from bullying at school, or maybe it is just some sort of collective myth, but some gay men seem to have a rather disturbing fear of straight guys.

Straight men, especially white ones, are the current Big Bad for every "progressive" (self-described, I'd call them backward and divisive shadows of true progressive and inclusive movements). But this focus on smearing people based on their colour, gender and sexuality just doesn't sit right with me (an evil white man myself, so I suppose it figures). We are meant to be above this sort of thing but, almost at every turn, LGBT people happily try to insult straight men and even use underhand tactics to hurt them.

Take, for example, the recent approval for a "straight" lap dancing club in a "gay" district in Liverpool. Ignoring the fact that bisexuals are a part of LGBT politics, LGBT "leaders" opposed this new business based on fears it might bring an increase in homophobic violence. Why? Because straight men would be about. Some, in comments I've seen, have also used feminist arguments to oppose this "degrading" enterprise.

This is little different to the opposition to gay bars, clubs and other facilities which focus on all sorts of scare stories involving children, drugs and crime. It is little different to those who think gay bars are a "wretched hive of scum and villainy". At a time when a new rave of anti-sex puritans from both the left and right are fighting to undermine freedoms fought for by LGBT people for the last few decades, some LGBT folk seem unwilling to spot the connections between heterosexual sexual freedom and our own. LGBT "leaders" should be providing a refuge for those businesses ostracised elsewhere not joining in with the Christians and feminists.

And then we have this odd obsession with opposing anyone, regardless of whether they are truly nasty or just a bit eccentric, who even discusses a "straight pride" event. As if a straight pride event must automatically be oppositional to gay pride.  See this recent story. An all age event where everyone is welcome? Sounds just awful. Perhaps it'd be more acceptable to the LGBT glitterati if it had corporate sponsorship, some lacklustre and often insultingly awful campaigning organisations marching and some truly directionless political messages? Or should we just leave that to pretty much every gay pride march in the Western Anglosphere? They do seem to have it down to a fine art now.

Straight men aren't our enemy. They are our fathers, brothers, friends and colleagues. They are mostly decent people. We simply must stop tarring them with the same brush (the one we created with our teenage traumas, leftie political leanings and dodgy alliances with people who actually hate us). We need to start dealing individuals and not making wildly outrageous claims about entire groups. You know doing what we've been asking people to do for us for the last 100 years.

Ukip, David Coburn Is Not The Gay Man You Were Looking For

There have actually been people suggesting that, because David Coburn was elected as a MEP for Ukip in Scotland, Ukip can't possibly be a homophobic party. If you can remember David Coburn is a gay London-based member of Ukip who was instrumental in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

His fact-free attacks on it (suggesting it is some sort of unnecessary victory roll despite there being some very real need for marriage equality) have been looked at before on this blog.

And, just as he struggled to think of one example of EU interference in Scottish business today (audio here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27575204), he has always struggled to point out how banning religions and individuals from performing legally recognised marriages protects their religious and individual freedom.

He likes to claim to be a libertarian but he is dead set against individual and religious freedom on LGBT issues. He is not a libertarian, and quite clearly Ukip is no libertarian party. The fact he is gay in no way makes him any better on LGBT liberty than equally wonderful and kind-hearted people as Roger Helmer.

You can never convince me, of all people, that just having a gay person in your organisation makes you any better on LGBT rights. Just look at Andrew Pierce at the Daily Mail, Nigel Evans in the Conservative party and those wastes of spaces who work for Stonewall.

Ukip represent a fundamental danger to liberty and freedom of LGBT people in this country. They oppose same-sex marriage, they have candidates who support the efficacy of ex-gay therapy (as opposed to supporting just the freedom to seek it), they have candidates who support criminalising LGBT people. The general moral climate that their victories create is oppositional to sexual freedom and individual liberty.

So no, don't try convincing me that having a man who engages in painful circular arguments in order to harm the freedom of others is somehow a get out of homophobia free card.

NEXT!

The One Where I Don't Find Brendan O'Neill Completely Repellent

Something just doesn't sit right with me about all the talk over the Sochi Olympics. There's many issues surrounding it (the clearances, the corruption, the treatment of workers) and the debate that followed Russia's legislating to ban "LGBT propaganda" is one of those important issues. The treatment of LGBT people in Russia is a concern, as it is in many countries around the world, and taking action to investigate such abuses makes absolute sense.

However what doesn't sit right with me is the ridiculousness of the Western response. And hidden within Brendan O'Neill's latest clickbait article are some real truths about how feeble and stupid some of the reaction has been.

This Will and Gracing of the modern political sphere can be seen in the Guardian’s and New Statesman’s gay-themed refashioning of their mastheads for Sochi, in the furious spread around the internet of a meme showing Putin wearing lipstick (like a gay person!), in a hipster British brewer’s release of a ‘queer beer’ called ‘Hello, my name is Vladimir’, in Toronto City Hall’s raising of the gay flag for the duration of Sochi, in the United Nations’ decree that everyone in the West should ‘raise their voices’ for the gay community, and – get this – in Jon Snow’s decision to wear a gay flag-coloured tie on Channel 4 News during Sochi. If that doesn’t topple Putin, I don’t know what will.

And, because I've not been paying much attention to such silly gestures (and I'm instead wondering what can actually be done to help LGBT Russians, which is probably something well above my pay grade) I missed some of the insidiously homophobic comments that have been being made by the ever homophobic liberal sorts (who, it should be remembered, often tend to accuse homophobes of being gay) such as:

The Queer Eye vibe of the Sochi protests can be seen in the now incredibly popular pastime of Western journalists complaining about their hotels in Sochi, which has given rise to the exact same joke on every Twitterfeed in Christendom: ‘If you scare off gays, interior design goes to hell.’ Geddit?! Because gays are really good at interior design and Putin has gotten rid of all gays! This sort of shallow global posturing doesn’t only vastly exaggerate what Putin has done to Russia’s homosexuals – no, Stephen Fry, they do not face Nazi-style extermination – but it is also incredibly patronising to homosexuals. They wear lipstick, they dance about in hotpants, they are brilliant at decorating living rooms, and Russia will be really, really drab until it embraces them – that is the message of much of the gay-friendly uprising of Westerners against Putin.

Where I differ with Brendan O'Neill is the idea that criticising violence and hatred is somehow "imperialistic". And I think something, again above my pay grade, really does need to be done to help secure individual freedom worldwide.

But for once, he wasn't completely wrong. This is unlikely to happen again.

Ukip Has An Anti-LGBT Freedom Problem, And It Is Far Deeper Than Just Religious Belief.

Ukip want to be presented as the freedom-loving party. They try desperately to pretend, for it is not true, to be "libertarian". But when it comes to Ukippers themselves and how they deal with others personal lives, you truly come to see the "real" Ukip. And the real Ukip has a major issue with LGBT people and their freedom.

Any reader of this blog will know I occasionally mention their odd candidates and their even odder views on homosexuality. There was Mike Mendoza who believed 1) gay people don't like football, 2) people who don't like football are more likely to be paedophiles and then 3) put those two thoughts into one paragraph. There was David Nixon whose leaflet was used to "smear" Ukip. Winston McKenzie said same-sex couples adopting was akin to child abuse, ironically not long after a council had tried to remove kids from a Ukip supporting family! And then there was Julia Gasper who was suspended from her position in the party many, many months after she first aired her dislike for LGBT folk.

When you follow those stories through you find Ukip, as a party, really doesn't know how to handle these people. The current example is a case in point. David Silvester, an ex-Tory Ukip councillor in Hendon, wrote a letter to his local paper criticising David Cameron and same-sex marriage and, in the strange style we've come to expect from US based evangelicals, blamed the recent flooding around the country on the passing of the same-sex marriage bill. A small Twitterstorm broke out and gradually the story found its way on to large news service's headlines.

Nigel Farage and the party spokesperson defended his right to express his religious beliefs, even if unorthodox. This would be more acceptable if Ukip hadn't sacked Olly Neville over his support of same-sex marriage! The concept of liberty is an important one, but if it doesn't apply to all then it is not liberty.

Today David Silvester, being admirably if catastrophically consistent, did an interview with BBC Oxford radio where he called homosexuality a disease. The story continued to spread and on a day when Ukip should've been shouting from the rooftops after a fantastic opinion poll (for them if not for those of us who believe weather and climate are based on a little more than who has sex with who) they were instead being made to look terribly stupid.

Realising the game was up, Ukip reversed course and suspended him this afternoon. Unfortunately for them not only does this mean they'll have to weasel their way out of yesterday's statements (blaming it, I suspect, on Silvester not following party procedure or some such thing) but they will also have to deal with the social media fall out of their supporters getting very cross over the suspension and saying even more ridiculous things.

The problem for Ukip is that, to the vast majority of sensible people (even those who oppose much of the LGBT rights agenda), their candidates are often seen as being a bit out of touch and very offensive. But if they sack them or punish them in anyway they risk alienating their core support who quite obviously agree with them!

This is evident in Ukip's very poorly articulated policy on same-sex marriage. It wants to be all things to all people, but manages only to be an absolute mess. See here and here.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and unfortunately the rock keeps bashing against them. Just see this latest story reporting a Ukipper's dislike of "gays, Catholics and Communists" in Glasgow.

They've hitched their tent on religious freedom. There is no dishonour in that. But they forgot to set their own beliefs clearly enough to avoid being tarnished by every nasty comment uttered by one of their members. This was a rookie error, and I wonder just how many other Ukip policies are as ill-thought out and ill-considered as this.

Worryingly nearly 2 people in every 10 currently state they'll vote for them. Then again far more believe in ghosts and UFOs in this country so perhaps that sort of number was inevitable.

LGBT Ugandans Don't Need Giles Fraser Labeling Them As Homophobes

There is no doubt some truth to the closeted homophobe meme. We need only look at Nigel Evans, Cardinal O'Brien or, possibly, Aaron Schock to see this and need not even look at the studies pointing out the links between an extremely closeted life and projections of anti-LGBT sentiment.

But the gusto with which some have adopted it to explain every case of homophobia concerns me for a number of reasons.

Giles Fraser today implies, rather than looking with true curiousity at the fact Uganda is at once a country recently infamous for anti-LGBT legislation but also the one with the 3rd for search requests on Google for "man fucking man", that Ugandans looking at gay porn might well be homophobes. Perhaps LGBT Ugandans have plenty else to be worrying about without some Westerner labelling them closested homophobes on top of that.

I can think, just off the top of my head of a couple of possible reasons Uganda is so high on the listing.

1) They aren't all that high in reality for searching for gay porn or similar search terms. "Man fucking man" is hardly likely to feature highly on most Western English-speaking countries lists (where gay is currently the near universally accepted descriptive for such liasons) nor in many non-English speaking countries so the list is dominated by Commonwealth (or former Commonwealth) countries where English is spoken but which are not overly Westernised. The very basis for Fraser's assumptions is flawed. I'd like to see some real evidence LGBT Ugandans are uniquely incredibly drawn to gay porn before we start calling them homophobes!

2) Perhaps Uganda is so high up in search results for "man fucking man" because anti-LGBT feeling in their country makes engaging in such sex for real rather risky? Surely this would have some affect on porn consumption among sexual minorities?

Fraser falls into the trap of victim blaming in order to insult opponents. And it is a typical liberal-leftie move to insult opponents by calling them gay. "Eww... that homophobe is a GAY!"

Yes homophobic homosexuals are hypocrites. All readers of this blog know that I find them abhorrent and never waste a moment in bringing up their names (NIGEL EVANS) to remind the world to avoid them at all costs. But not all homophobes are homosexual, I suspect not even a majority are. And them being homosexual isn't the problem... their homophobia is!

No matter whether the people behind "Kill the Gays" are LGBT or not (I suspect a big "Not" on that one), the bill itself was fundamentally wrong and what has come after it remains so.

We need to stop casting aspersions on whole groups of people just because it fits into our neat pseudo-psychological political aims. LGBT Ugandans need our sympathy and our support. Not ridiculous accusations.

Cardinal O'Brien Isn't Going To Help Any Closeted Priests

I said last month that, were it not for the actions that led up to it, Cardinal O'Brien's very public fall from grace would've been the highlight of 2013 for me. What actions was it that made me a little more reluctant to gloat? Was it the fact he'd hurt so many people with his aggressive and hurtful language in opposition to LGBT freedom? Nope, though he did. 

My concerns with Cardinal O'Brien stem not from his textbook example of how to be a homophobic closet-case, but from the fact he hurt several men he was responsible for. From a position of power he made inappropriate sexual advances on men who clearly did not want them. I know how the media love a good "former homophobe comes out and makes good" story and I know I'm no fan of such narratives (see my distaste for people like Nigel Evans). But this is not even one of those stories. 

Cardinal O'Brien is a man we should be glad to have got rid of, a man whose story serves only as an example of how not to live your life. So why am I bringing him up again? Because Mary McAleese, former President of the Republic of Ireland, thinks Cardinal O'Brien telling his life story would some how assist priests struggling with their sexuality. 

I'm afraid Cardinal O'Brien has done enough damage as it is, unhelpfully feeding the homophobic stereotype of gay men as sexual predators. And when it comes to a group such as priests they didn't need any more bad press of that sort. It is, I've no doubt, far harder for a Catholic priest to come out post-O'Brien's downfall that it was before. 

And what would his story say? Would it paint him as the victim of his sexual desires? Is a man who takes out an internal conflict by making unwanted sexual advances against others really a man who has anything useful to tell us about overcoming fears of coming out? 

I cannot imagine a worst example. Though an example of how not to do things can be useful, the risk of making him some sympathetic character and of him overshadowing his victims (once again) is one I think is best avoided. 

Keep O'Brien away. Give the Catholic church a chance to make good on the pain he, and others like him, have caused to others. And offer real support to struggling priests with LGBT outreach and avoid tarring them with any connection to such an unworthy man as Cardinal Keith O'Brien. Give them hope, not hate. 

My Own Little Boxing Match: Conflicting Emotions On Evander Holyfield

Just yesterday I was ranting on Twitter about people who "suffer from same-sex attraction". Their odd beliefs that they or, in the minds of their allies, others "suffer" from something akin to a "disability" because they are attracted to people of the same-sex are worthy of strong bouts of derisory laughter.

Sadly yet another example of this appeared within hours when Evander Holyfield put forward the Christian perspective on same-sex attraction: Holyfield remarked that finding someone of the same-sex attractive was akin to having a birth defect that needed medical attention.

This is enough for anyone to recognise he hasn't a clue about the subject at hand. Sexuality is a complicated and fluid thing and the dangerous idea it needs to be policed when it harms none is one should be mocked and vigorously argued against. (And for those who would point out "Well it does harm people" I would ask them to explain in what way touching another member of the same-sex's genitals in a consensual setting could possibly harm another as a general rule [i.e. sexually transmitted diseases, not unique to same-sex couplings, don't quite cover it]).

All well and good so far, I'm fighting on the side of the "angels" (for which read the leftie, liberal progressive worldview).

But the reaction from Channel 5 and Ofcom, with dodgy wordings from Big Brother such as:

"While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren't the views that are held by a large section of society, and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. 

Do you understand why?"

Exactly what point are they trying to get at? Homosexuality has, for a great deal of time, offended a large section of society. That didn't mean homosexuality was wrong. If I were to base my moral and ethical judgments on what a "large section of society" believes I think I would be far less moral and ethical than I currently am (for which see people who think boxing is a suitable sport to watch or participate in).

And Ofcom's suggestion that it might investigate Celebrity Big Brother over the remarks stinks of the sort moralistic mothering that crushed LGBT people's freedom of expression for years.

I hate to do this but I, for the most part, find myself agreeing with Brendan O'Neill (a man whose career is partially based on supporting every homophobic remark or campaign he comes across out of a sense of contrarianism) when he calls attitudes towards Holyfield "intolerant".

I wholeheartedly believe that Evander Holyfield is an idiot. I completely oppose his position that same-sex attraction is in any way worthy of shame or correction. But, just as when I've stated I'm not opposed to LGBT folk seeking ex-gay or ex-trans therapy regardless of its efficacy or lack thereof, I cannot see any reason (he makes no threat of violence nor demands action against others) to censure or censor his remarks officially.

Let the anti-LGBT folk hang themselves with their words. My office was filled with derisory laughter today over his remarks. They were hardly eloquent or thought-provoking enough to have engendered any other reaction from most reasonable people. We must argue forcefully against such people. But let's try to be the better people whilst doing it.

Whitstable Times Has A Timely Reminder For Us Homosexual Sinners To "Take Heed". Yes, Really.

You know local newspaper letter pages. Filled with witty/godawful attempts at poetry, insightful local comment and completely moronic witterings (yes, I've had the occasional letter published). And sometimes, just sometimes, you have some letter that is so offensive as to leave you a little speechless.

Well in this case I'd class the following letter in the Whitstable Times as in the "completely moronic" category. Hey, it criticises Stonewall so I'm almost sympathetic!

.@thisiskent curious to know how you feel about one of your group @TimesWhitstable printing this letter? pic.twitter.com/ujzfnCoDZT
— Jo Frazer-Wise (@jofwise) October 10, 2013

It isn't as offensive as some letters I've seen, though I'm not really a fan of bronze age magic books. But what is offensive is the header, written by some sub at the Whitstable Times,

"Take heed, all you homosexual sinners"

It boggles the mind as to what was going through that subs head at the time. It really does. Absolutely unbelievable.

It is a silly thing to get annoyed over, but it has really pissed me off. I don't mind your average Christian moaning about all those people falling in love and being happy (MONSTERS!), but I do mind having Bible quotes editorialised to send a message to readers that is quite unacceptable in a local newspaper!

When Did LGBT Folk Become The People We Hated?

Last month marked 36 years since Mary Whitehouse took Gay News to court for publishing a blasphemous poem. 29 years ago Gays The Word was raided for obscene materials. Right now attempts to filter the internet and ban "sexualised" images in public are likely to lead to more attempts to stifle free speech by LGBT people (see, for example, the way mobile phone companies block legitimate LGBT websites). 

We've been fighting for freedom for decades. I'm thankful, very thankful, to those who came before me that I came of age in a time when things have been less difficult (the only really homophobic incident I can think of is having stones thrown at me for holding hands with my then boyfriend). But even so the history of the struggle still influences the way I think. 

Unfortunately this history of oppression, for daring to say and do things of which mainstream society didn't approve, has singularly failed to stop some LGBT people becoming just as EVIL (and I do not use that word lightly, but use it I must) as Christians ever were (and are). 

We've had cases for the last ten years or so of preachers being harassed and arrested by police for doing things of which mainstream society does not approve. Be it speaking in public (Adrian Tippetts brilliantly defends the right of Tony Miano to be horrid in public here), leafleting (Stephen Green, shudder) or emailing (see the latest instance involving Alan Clifford here) it would seem religious nutters are getting a bit of a hard time. 

Anti-gay public speaking is offensive, to me at least. I remember one particular instance of a guy with a megaphone in Trafalgar Square that left me so angry and hurt that he could say such things in public. But I didn't do anything because I believe in live and let live (and the looks on the faces of the many other random people in Trafalgar Square showed me his message was not winning any hearts and minds, quite the opposite in fact). 

We have suffered police interference in our freedoms for many, many years. We should be standing side by side with anyone suffering similarly. But, as it would seem with the Alan Clifford issue, it is now LGBT people colluding with the silencing, shaming and persecution (for even though this is not quite at the levels of persecution faced by Christians elsewhere it is persecution nonetheless) of others. 

I remember when the LGBT group at a company I worked with was chastised by the company after a gay employee reported us for using the word "queer". When I attended the next meeting everyone was deeply apologetic towards this person (who had never, and did never, attend a single meeting of our group). I never attended another meeting, finding this cowardice in the face of idiocy to be too much to bear. When did we become the bad guys? When did we think that policing other people's thoughts and speech was in anyway acceptable? 

I understand the hurt these people cause. I really do. They deserve to be shunned by society and ignored by decent people everywhere. But we cannot silence them because we don't like what they say. The way to beat them is to defeat their arguments and win over more people to the side of sanity. 

I've spoken of the boot being on the other foot now. We've won so many battles that the power truly is in the hands of those on our side. But we must remember what the boot felt like from the receiving end and never use it. 

We have an opportunity to show just how superior we are to those who killed, persecuted and hurt LGBT people over the last few centuries. We can be the better people. We must be the better people. 

If that means I stand in support of Alan Clifford, anti-gay hatemonger that he is, then so be it. Freedom isn't just for those we agree with. It isn't just for us. It cannot be. Don't let us become the people we hated. 

"Support for Traditional Marriage Is Collapsing" (Based On Anti-Equality Activists Polling)

Today we have a new Angus Reid poll out on the topic of marriage equality.

The overall results are, in my opinion, pretty positive for the marriage equality cause. 46% (+3 since January) think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry; 33% would allow same-sex couples to form civil partnerships, but not marry; 14% believe same-sex couples should not have any kind of legal recognition 

A simple majority supporting marriage equality and a very impressive overall majority supporting legal partnership rights for same sex couples. Which only serves to throw extra light upon the deceptive questions used in the two ComRes polls this year to try to make the anti-equality side look popular.

The first poll was so extraordinarily outrageous that it staggers me that even the Telegraph could bring itself to write about it. But they did and presented, as fact, the idea that 70% of the population oppose marriage equality.

I cannot believe that Catholic Voices had the audacity to ask people to agree or disagree with a statement about marriage without mentioning marriage equality at all and then present it as evidence that their position had the support of 70%(!) of the country. Even more unbelievably some commentators continue to quote this figure now!

Scotland for Marriage tried the same trick afterwards and got the result that 55% of Scots were opposed.

Well Angus Reid managed to be quite thorough and asked before a direct, straightforward question about support for marriage equality to get the above results and asked a similar question to ComRes to find 43% say they would vote to support the statement "To define marriage as between a man and a woman" and 43% said they would define it as between two people.

Now based on these polls I can come to only one conclusion: support for the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is collapsing at a rate of knots. From 70% to 43% in less than a year? The anti-marriage equality campaign must be going well then...

Of course I'm being facetious, and don't believe there has been any such collapse. I just believe the 70% figure was complete baloney! And to see it quoted so often by the anti-marriage equality crowd only serves to strengthen my belief that they will stoop to any level to try and win. Which just doesn't seem very Christian to me at all.

You can make polling say anything and if you really have to rely on fixing them to prove your case, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate that case again.

Don't let them get away with mentioning it any more and make sure you leave a comment under any article you see pointing out the deceit behind the statement.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Bigotgate II: Marriage Equality And Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg, a man who has been completely behind marriage equality for as long as the issue has been discussed (yes even before most LGBT politicians!), has sadly annoyed the anti-equality folks with his use of that highly charged word "bigot" in a draft speech.

Even more sadly he then removed that word from the actual speech and assured everyone he doesn't think they are bigots if they oppose marriage equality.

Peter Bone, Tory MP, had this to say:

“Nick Clegg has got to explain himself and apologise very rapidly, this is not the way the deputy prime minister behaves.”

I'd definitely say that it was very bad politics to use that word, especially as it has only been two years since the original bigotgate. And it isn't true that every marriage equality opponent is a "bigot".  A very small number are simply confused as to what is being proposed (many seem to think the churches will be forced to marry people they don't want to, a justifiable thing to be concerned about but not actually true). But I think the use of such a strong word is hardly something the anti-equality folks should be upset about. Shall we take a look at some of the things people who should know better have said about us recently?

Cardinal O'Brien refers to plans for marriage equality as follows:

Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

Grotesque. Such a nasty word. Peter Bone, of course, came out quickly calling for his resignation. Oh wait... no.

Lord Maginnis said:

“Does that mean that every deviant sexual practice has to be accommodated? Will the next thing be that we legislate for some sort of bestiality?”

Peter Bone obviously found this unacceptable and distanced himself from these comments. Oh wait... no.

Then there was the Tory MP who said this about marriage equality.

“Wouldn’t it just be very simple to write back and say, ‘Marriage is between a man and a woman so this is completely nuts’?”

Hardly the measured tone one would expect from a Tory MP on this. I'm sure Peter Bone was there telling his colleague to behave more appropriately given the sensitive and serious nature of the subject and the strong beliefs on both sides of the issue. Oh wait... that was Peter Bone! 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

When anti-equality folks get as annoyed about the sort of over-the-top comments above as they do over the use of the word "bigot", then we'll accept they may not be bigots. 

Nick Clegg should have been more careful with the words he chose, that goes without saying I think. I may not think he is the Lib Dem saviour, as I once did, but I know on this issue he is a principled and decent man who has strong views on this subject. Just as they do with our opponents, those strong views sometimes get the better of him. You can't really blame him for that. 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Remember When The Catholics Were The Ones Accused Of "Subversion"?

"As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects." - William Blackstone

It is sometimes hard to remember that the Catholic population of our country is still not fully equal to anybody else. This is plain to see in the Acts of Succession. Thankfully this final left-over from the anti-Catholic laws will soon be removed and Catholics will be able to say they are finally equal citizens with the rest of us.

Awful things were done to Catholics in the past in this country (and, of course, awful things were done by them when they briefly returned to power). Things we should never forget. Sadly it would appear that some Catholics have forgotten their past persecution and now seek to persecute those of us who they dislike. The boot is sadly on the other foot now.

Cardinal O’Brien said: “The Church’s teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that Governments, politicians or Parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality. With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online prescence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage. While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society.” 

Let us try not to persecute the Catholics when they lose their self-declared "war" (totally Christian language as always) and instead defend their rights to religious freedom. That will be the sweetest of victories indeed.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

National Marriage Sunday Renews The Campaign Against LGBT People In Scotland

I believe that some people who have concerns about marriage equality are not homophobic. Whilst it is hard for those of us who are personally affected by their opposition to accept this, I think it is something we should remember. Know thy enemy after all!

But when it comes to opposition from the upper echelon of the Catholic Church's command structure, I feel that the "We aren't homophobic!" line is completely without merit. Today, in Scotland, they have declared it to be National Marriage Sunday and propose to form a new group against marriage equality known as the National Commission for Marriage and the Family. Yet we know just how their arguments will go...

Item: People 'should not act on homosexual feelings', says Catholic spokesman

Their insistence that they are just concerned about their religious freedom and protecting "true marriage" is shown clearly to be a lie. Their campaign against marriage equality is rooted in personal and religious distaste for LGBT people. But it's not like they are trying to hide that...

Item: Scottish Catholics: Homosexuality cuts lifespan by up to 20 years

They are often reluctant to share the sources of these figures but the 20 years figure is a dead give away. That suggests they are using this 2005 study which is based, and this is excellent stuff, on a study of obituaries. Even a younger version of me worked out how that might be an incredibly flawed way of working.

And of course whether our "lifestyle" leads to a shorter lifespan is rather irrelevant to this debate. We do not decide who gets to marry based on how long they have to live, would the church ban a woman from marrying a man with HIV/AIDS?

Item: In reversal, Catholic Church backs ‘Kill the Gays’ bill

After previously opposing the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, a Catholic Archbishop and other Christian leaders have called for it to be put back on to the Parliamentary agenda. Although this may be because the death penalty part is now being downplayed, the bill remains repugnant.

Lest you think I have some hatred towards the Catholic church and Catholics in general, I don't. I have a problem with the leadership. I'm picking on them today as they are the ones who will be spreading a message of hate in their church services today disguised as "concern". There are individuals within the church who support marriage equality and some polls show a majority of Catholics (in Scotland) support it too! We must reach out to those people and ask them to reach out to their leadership and point them in the right direction.

But be under no doubt... the Catholic church leadership do not oppose marriage equality out of some high-minded matter of principle. They do so because they despise LGBT people and our relationships. I wish I could make our opponents imagine how they would feel if not only were they told their relationship with their loved one was sick but that people ACTIVELY tried to destroy that relationship and make them live a life of celibacy. Unfortunately, because many in the Catholic hierarchy do live a life of celibacy, this may be too great a leap of imagination and empathy.

I'll leave you with this.... when the representative of the Catholic church spends almost a whole debate on the matter of whether teachers will be sacked because of their views on marriage equality (as in the first link above), you know they are losing the argument. They are desperate and I'm concerned this will lead to further hateful remarks as they try to scaremonger.

Religious freedom must be protected, and if only the Catholic church and other religious opponents would work with the Scottish Government and marriage equality campaigners there might be a good chance it actually will be!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It's Okay To Be Homophobic If You're Gay, Part Two

Two years ago Andrew Pierce outed himself as a homophobe, one who believed that you can't be a homophobe if you are gay. This of course is a ridiculous proposition. Now he's come out with a more direct challenge in his most recent article's title: I’m a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?

Well I think the obvious answer to this is no, it doesn't but you are one anyway. Your hatred of "camp men", your disdain for the truth and the fact you think your sexuality trumps criticism suggests you are indeed a homophobe.

Disdain for the truth?, I hear you ask incredulously. Firstly in this most recent article he uses the same tired phrase of other homophobes; "metropolitan elite". This from a man who lives in Belsize Park! The idea that marriage equality is some secret plan of the queer toffs belies the fact that the people pushing this (such as Peter Tatchell) aren't exactly part of that "elite". And our opposition (including, in the past, such champagne socialists as Ben Summerskill and Chris Bryant) has often come from the very grouping supposedly in support!

He then moves on to quote Ben Bradshaw's (another elite me thinks) ill-thought out comments on marriage equality, without then pointing out Bradshaw will, ultimately, support the move!! Such deception!

But his final move is breath-taking in it's audacity.

Even gay rights campaigners are puzzled by the Prime Minister’s conversion to the cause. Stonewall, a powerful pressure group for gay equality, has not called for gay marriage.  

While the organisation — of which I’m proud to be a member — supports the idea of gay marriage, its priority remains tackling homophobia in schools after research showed that gay men in the 16-to-24 age group are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than other young men. 

Stonewall did adopt that position.... in 2009! It is now very much attempting to steal the spotlight and "lead" the marriage equality campaign. There's even a whole campaign now!

So even if there's an argument that Andrew Pierce isn't a bigot, I think there's quite a clear argument that he's not to be trusted.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Thanet Conservative Councillor Leaves Homophobic Abuse On Fellow Councillor's Phone

One of the architects of the equal marriage debate at Thanet Council, Cllr John Worrow, recently received a homophobic message.

It has today come to light that this was the work of Cllr Ken Gregory who is a Tory.

 Here's a statement from Cllr Worrow:

 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Campaign For Marriage Is Doing Far Better Than They Should Be

So the Coalition Against, sorry, For Marriage's campaign is doing well. Oh, I'm not too worried that they are about to tip the balance against the Government's civil marriage equality plans. But they are doing far better than they should be.

Their petition against marriage equality has, at the time of writing, just under 65,000 signatures. The campaign for equal marriage has just over 10% of that number signing up. They've also got vocal supporters who are much more able to get press coverage of their authoritarian views. Be it Ann Widdecombe suggesting marriage equality is being foisted on an unwilling populace, or Peter Bone who thinks the idea is "completely nuts", they are the ones getting all the attention. They even have Labour MPs like Joe Benton and Jim Dobbin signing their petition (Gordon Brown and Jack Straw next perhaps?).

Thanks to the neutering of the debate due to the introduction of civil partnerships, we don't have supporters in the public eye who are even half as devoted to marriage equality as their opposite numbers are devoted to defeating it. It's not an issue that get's the LGBT friendly types excited. We don't have someone of Lady Gaga's stature in popular culture calling for it. We don't have politicians doing more than offering their support. We don't have champions willing to get dirty for it. The best we have, and I shake my head as I type this, is Ben Summerskill! The only truly pro-marriage equality story to make the big time news wise was Lynne Featherstone's recent show of support, and that's only because she's a Minister (the story getting into the news that is, her support isn't questioned!). Peter Tatchell, hero that he is, isn't forgotten but the media tend to ignore him unless he is 1) violently attacked or 2) arrested and I hope he doesn't need to do either of those two things in the name of marriage equality in the UK!

Even worse, we still have the radical anti-marriage folks (who I have sympathy with but they want to BAN marriage where as I want to make it a private matter) playing right into the campaigns evil plans! Just check out Julie Bindel, she of transphobic fame, getting all upset at the time wasted on marriage equality. She might think it's wasted time, she doesn't need to campaign for it, but for some of us it's about being able to marry the one we love! I know, romance is dead and all that...

Who is going to be to marriage equality what Ben Cohen and Gareth Roberts have been to the campaign against homophobia in sport? We need a hero!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Frustratingly Daft Response From Church Of England

You know I'm no fan of the Government's plans for religious civil partnerships. But the reaction from the Church of England to the proposals is complete nonsense.

The Government plans to open up the ability for those entering into a civil partnership to have religious readings, texts, etc at their wedding and perhaps even hold it in a religious setting (such a Liberal Synagogue). It is not forcing religions to change their beliefs or coercing them to perform civil partnerships. Yet the reaction from the Church of England would appear to suggest otherwise.

Here's the latest:

The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Bishop Nicholas Reade, says his churches will not be used for same-sex ceremonies.

And he has criticised proposals for a change in the law, believed to have been drawn up by Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone.

No problems there, each to their own and all that.

Bishop Nicholas said: I find it quite hard to understand why the government should think it can interfere with the teachings of the church.

Sorry, come again???

Church and state are not the same thing, and I am very surprised that without any consultation with the church the government is making such a sweeping statement.

Erm... failing to see the point here. The Government should have consulted with the Church before allowing OTHER RELIGIONS to have the choice to perform civil partnerships? It makes no sense!

But Bishop Nicholas, whose diocese covers the whole of East Lancashire, said it was not the governments role to make the change.

Bishop Nicholas views echo an official statement from the Church of England, which said it would not allow its churches to be used.

It's not the Governments role to make something that is illegal legal?? Then whose role is it?? The Church of England does not have the authority to create legislation that's binding on other religions and the non-religious does it?

Bishop Nicholas is a fool. And I mean that in the sense that he is obviously stupid. And when I say that I mean he is so intellectually deficient that I find it quite bizarre that he has reached the position that he has. But then again he is in an organisation that believes in Virgin Birth.

Daft.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist