What Did You Just Call Me?

My first thoughts for this blog come from a comment in a previous blog, ‘Will You MARRY Me?’ and the use of the term ‘gay-marriage’. The words we use to describe ourselves and those around us. I begin with a quote from the well-known TV show ‘Queer As folk’;

‘Queers. Because I'm queer. I'm gay. I'm homosexual. I'm a poof, I'm a poofter, I'm a ponce. I'm a bumboy, batty-boy, backside artist, bugger. I'm bent. I am that arsebandit. I lift those shirts. I'm a faggot-ass, fudge-packing, shit-stabbing uphill gardener. I dine at the downstairs restaurant. I dance at the other end of the ballroom. I'm Moses and the parting of the red cheeks.’

We have all heard the various terminologies used by others as derogatory insults. Most of us will remember the first time that someone called us one of the above. I personally remember how much it upset me in my teens to have these words hurled across the playground at me. For me it hurt even more because I didn’t think I was. I wasn’t even aware of my own sexuality at the time. Back then I genuinely had no real thoughts or feelings of bias towards any sex to be honest. How could others be calling me these things when I didn’t even know myself? It caused untold amounts of anguish, confusion and pain for me.

Fast forward through the years and I have grown from those experiences. They have given me a very thick skin and the ability to shrug them off. But I shouldn’t really have to shrug them off because, quite frankly, that kind of language shouldn’t be heard in society and should be frowned upon as severely as racism now is. Yet, every so often I still hear it and, like I say, for the most part I shrug them off, but occasionally, if it catches me off guard, it hurts as much as it did back in my teens.

Therefore you can imagine my shock when I hear those terms bandied around by other gay people! Firstly I can’t believe what I have just heard and I have to double-take and secondly I am taken to that place in my teens. It then makes me incredibly angry. Some of us spend so much time and energy fighting against the use of this kind of language. When did it become acceptable to use it within the community? Or is that it? Are people who are LGBT allowed to refer to one another like this yet if anyone else says it, we get offended? I’d say that smacks of double standards wouldn’t you? It is almost as though we are claiming exclusive use of those words, which in turn, separates us from everyone else.

It is a bit like the rather controversial N word often used as a derogatory term for Black people that is also used as a colloquial term in some black cultures where it is considered acceptable. In one instance it is the nastiest and vilest insult you can call someone and in another it is perfectly acceptable. Here, a community uses the language that was once used against them. Doesn’t that take the power out of it? The black community often refers to themselves and one another using that N word. Within that community it has become desensitised slang. And likewise, how many times have we referred to one another as a poof? Within the community, have these terms become warm and can they be used affectionately even? I can see that in some kind of way it disarms the language.

You see, for me, it is the acceptance of the use of these terms within a community that makes the waters really muddy. Here we are, fighting to be accepted, to be equal and to be treated like everyone else. Some of us are active in trying to make sure that children (or anyone else for that matter) do not grow up thinking it is ok to use these words. We try to help people understand just how much it can hurt and why language like this has no place in society and then we use those words ourselves.

I remember an old saying that it was always best to take the mickey out of yourself before someone else does, so I can understand why someone may opt to use those words before anyone else does. Perhaps, in some skewed kind of way, it is a form of taking ownership of the word and almost changing its definition. After all, the word gay itself didn’t actually mean a male who is homosexual. It simply meant happy. People then started to use the word in other ways, for a reason I am still researching (probably a blog entry in the future) and then the next thing you know, it had become a nasty word to use against people. But now we use it quite happily (how ironic) to describe ourselves. Alternatively, people currently use the word gay to indicate that something is not very good… ironically, it inspired the title of my blog. I wanted to take that negative indication that many people currently use and turn it around, reclaim ownership as it were.

But does attempting to reclaim ownership of the words make the use of them ok?

Personally, I don’t think we should. I would feel like a hypocrite calling one of my gay friends a poof. Oh yeah, because they are my friend it is perfectly acceptable!? After the years of hurt that very same word caused me I simply couldn’t do it and I would not accept anyone else, gay or not, calling me by that word.

There is also the legal standpoint. You can be brought to book for using what is considered to be offensive language even if the person offended is not the recipient. If I called a close friend a queer and some outsider heard this, they could have me prosecuted. I can definitely see why this is the case. If I overheard a group of white guys talking about the black community and using the N word and generally being racist, I could remonstrate with them and have the law on my side but it gets complicated if it was a group of black guys saying it.  The context surely, is the intent to offend. Who draws that line and decides whether there was intent to offend? It would be very difficult to police surely?

In this instance I am very conflicted. On the one hand I can appreciate the need to take ownership over what is an insult to thereby desensitise it and destroy its effect as an insult. On the other, I can honestly say it would make me feel uncomfortable using such language as some kind of bizarre term of endearment. Given that I am so conflicted about this, I can’t really come to any conclusion about what is right and what is best. Right now, I feel it is really important that we don’t encourage the use of such derogatory language by making it seem acceptable within the LGBT community. I feel it could damage the on-going fight for equality and only serve to drive a wedge between the way we behave and the way we expect everyone else to. However, I admit I could be wrong and possibly over sensitive about the language in the first place, given my past experiences.

So, given my own indecision, what do you think? I would be interested to hear your thoughts...

Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now...

…As the ‘great’ Starship once told us at least. (And if you don’t know the artist and film the song was from, you really need to go do your homework :-P)

With the battle for marriage equality still raging on, I got to thinking about whether there will ever be a time when there is total acceptance. Will there ever be a day when we see an end to homophobia, racism, sexism and all the other isms?

I’ll be honest, I am not convinced there will be. Perhaps it is a sad and harsh reality of the human condition that there is always going to be someone out there that doesn’t just dislike what others do or what others are, but hates it so much that they will go to the nastiest lengths to stop it. Looking back over the history of the LGBT community, we have weathered many a storm. Whether it be the fact that being homosexual was illegal, or the homophobic bullying as a child, the ‘gay-bashing’, the introduction of anti-LGBT legislation or even as part of the holocaust. Despite all of that hatred and violence over the years, there are still out and proud people nearly everywhere. Unfortunately some countries are a little slow on the uptake. Considering that level of hatred and violence, LGBT people in the UK have continued fighting against persecution when they could have just as easily slipped back into the closet, conformed to what society expected and lived a very unhappy life. But they didn’t. Many others around the world simply can't. 

What I am trying to say is that, despite all the anti-gay behaviour, gay people still exist. Well of course they do I hear you say. They are a part of the world. The haters can call us names, beat us, prevent us from being equal and heck even try to exterminate us but would it make a difference. Would it actually stop gay people from existing? The suggestion is completely ridiculous because it simply wouldn’t. There is always going to be that, ‘someday somewhere’ (yep, another cheeky – and rather camp - song reference there) where someone prefers the love, companionship and sexual pleasure from someone of the same sex. It is simply the way of the world. We don’t understand how or why, but that is the way it is. Just the same as the sun in the sky, homosexuals WILL exist. Granted, given enough power, opponents could force us into hiding through fear, but would that stop homosexuality from existing? Nope. So why the opponents still fight so hard is totally beyond me. To me, they are fighting a totally lost cause for that reason. Deny us as many rights as you like or introduce new laws to give us less legal rights, we aren’t going anywhere.

Although, in the same breath, we as homosexuals have got to do our fair share of accepting here too! We are never going to remove all hatred towards us. We are never going to stop the fact that some people don’t understand homosexuality. Some people are nauseated by the thought of two men sleeping together, or being in love with one another and do you know what; I am cool with that. I can get over it. I daresay some will find that a little shocking considering the fact I am someone who is reasonably active in speaking up for equality and LGBT rights. But my thinking is that I don’t really care what people think about me providing it is just that. As long as they are not trying to hurt me or diminish my rights or those of my community, nor trying to rally others to agree with their hate, then their hate doesn’t actually affect me does it? So I am happy to let them continue living their hate filled lives. Heck, I hate peas so does that mean that I have to rally everyone to also hate them and segregate any person who does like them? Again, the notion is just simply ridiculous. No matter how hard I try, there is no way I can eradicate another person’s taste for peas. Sure I could make it really uncomfortable for those people if I were given enough power, but no matter how much power I might have, I cannot totally remove that part of the human condition that means they like peas with their pie; especially mushy ones because they are just vile! I just simply choose not to have them on my dinner plate. 

And therein lays my point. We have to learn and accept that we cannot and will not be able to entirely eradicate at least some small portion of dislike. All we can do is ask that their dislike doesn’t affect our lives. Just because they don’t like the idea of homosexuality and they refuse to accept it, it by no means, gives them any right to try and change it. I have a sneaking suspicion that if we all managed to accept that fact of life we would all probably get along just that little bit better.

Anyways, I am going to sign off now as I have a pie in the oven. Yup, I am having pie for dinner, sans the peas…

I never could trust anyone who liked peas…

(PS. That last line is in jest… not the part about having pie… the other bit)

Will You MARRY Me?

Well, well, well. Isn’t the debate over Equal Marriage really heating up lately? The government have passed the bill through to the third stage and momentum is growing. Still, there is a long way to go…

After watching the parliament channel for a massive chunk of the broadcast during the second ‘reading’ it is clear that one the biggest opponents in this latest political hotbed are the church, or at least a large part of it. I will be quite frank and say I am totally at a loss as to why there is such an issue here. Sure, I have heard lots of their reasons for why the LGBT should not be given equal marriage rights but they are so ridiculously flawed. We have all seen the viral memes and Facebook images enough to educate us, even if we don’t truly understand religion. Of course, religion by its very nature can be read and skewed depending on what you want to believe so I recommend that people exercise caution when looking at the ‘facts’. The most common argument is the age old “Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, i.e. marriage is between one man and one woman. I should note, it was hilarious that the MP David Simpson managed to quote it incorrectly and said “in the garden of Eden it was Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve”. Except that the bible also clearly shows many other examples of people not sticking to that ONE man and ONE woman rule and it being accepted. Jacob had two, Esau had three, Gideon had many and King Solomon had seven… HUNDRED!

There are countless examples out there and so I am massively confused as to why religious people insist on using the same flawed arguments against equal marriage. Granted, we are all entitled to an opinion but if you are having a debate with someone and your defences are flawed because they highlight a massive chunk of hypocrisy you would normally accept gracious defeat and perhaps go away and rethink your opinion. At least that is the way I have always done it. That is the whole point of debate. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong. The skill in debate is to know when you should accept that you are wrong and take a step back before you continue to make yourself look like a single minded fool.

 

As it stands, I don’t think that religion en masse is ready or even able to take that step yet which in itself screams of the double standard that religion hides behind. Religion frequently tells us to love one another, to be accepting and that ultimately, God forgives all. Yet they are, with vitriol so nasty it is the complete opposite of everything they teach… hate. They pretend that they are accepting and it’s just the marriage issue, but let’s face it, by declining equal marriage they are making the statement that we are different from them and that we are lesser human beings.  That is how I perceive it.

I make no secret of the fact I don’t particularly like religion. Mainly because of its blatant hypocrisy, however, I would like to make it clear that I do not begrudge any person their faith. In some respects I actually admire their devotion and their ability to believe in something without complete solid proof. Of course, they will argue that the proof is the world around us and the book that tells us all about it, but for me, that really isn’t enough. I have far too many questions that have been brushed off in the past. I once questioned something I didn’t understand about the bible and I was told, quite simply, that I shouldn’t question what the bible says! Really? Sorry, I am not wired that way. I need to be able to understand it; ever since I was a child I have questioned things. I don’t do blind faith, in fact, it is not that I don’t, it is that I can’t! My parents have said in the past that I was a nightmare because I always wanted to understand everything and everything had to have a reason. Yep, I was that precocious little kid who asked ‘why’ a lot.

Some would argue that clearly I just haven’t found the ‘right’ answers to understand religion and I agree.  That is exactly why I am writing this blog. If I could at the very least understand the religious position on equal marriage perhaps I could respect it. Unfortunately though, every argument that their leaders make against equal marriage is very easily and quickly refuted and their hypocrisy is highlighted.  What really grates my cheese here is that they never make any attempt to explain or justify that hypocrisy, and in fact they continue to use the same arguments. What makes it even more hilarious is  how adamant they seem to cling to the notion that the bible forbids the act of gay marriage when they don’t follow the other rules in the bible. For instance, in the New Testament book of Mark, Jesus says, “Therefore what god has joined together, let no one separate.” Would you care to explain divorce then? - At the least the Catholics have managed to stick to that rule and still don’t accept divorce. Of course, for many years, divorce wasn’t allowed but eventually the laws were changed (thanks to Henry VIII) and in our modern world, certainly in the UK, divorce is accepted. The bible also states that ‘Anyone who divorces and marries another commits adultery’. Again, this is a frequent occurrence in the modern world and one that is, for the vast majority accepted. Even royalty were allowed to do it! So we aren’t allowed to marry because apparently the bible says so but they can divorce even though the bible says not to. I could probably go on dissecting hundreds of similar examples of religious rules. The rules that are still in the bible yet are no longer adhered to, but that would take up far too many blogs (and hours of my day too).

The point here, is that religion, over the years has adapted, it has evolved, and it has changed from what it was when that all precious book was written. All manner of life issues, not just marriage, flout what the bible actually says and do so amongst religious groups too! So why are they so determined to continue standing against equal marriage?

Many of the politicians that stood and spoke at the debate on 5th February 2013 spoke about how marriage is a religious institution that the government has no business getting involved in. I actually agree, the government has no right getting involved in the institute of religious marriage. They have quite clearly laid out that no religious faith will be forced to perform a same-sex marriage and many of the religions that do wish to, will be given the opportunity to opt-in as it were. So it is very clear, the government is not looking at a change in religious marriage whatsoever. What they are looking at, is the other type of marriage which is called a ‘Civil Ceremony’ (or Civil Marriage as it is often referred) and I can guarantee that you know someone who has married in this way. In fact, I would wager that you know more people that have got married like this than those who got married in a church? By definition a civil ceremony is a non-religious legal marriage ceremony performed by a government official or functionary. In the UK, this person is normally called a registrar. In the UK, a civil registrar ceremony cannot include hymns, religious readings or prayers, and the marriage must take place at a registered or licensed venue to be legally valid. The fact that all religious references are excluded from this type of ceremony shows that a religious wedding and a civil ceremony (or civil marriage) are two very different things.

This then begs the question. Why is religion even being brought into the discussion when civil ceremonies are by definition state ceremonies? why can’t the politicians alter the laws that govern that particular type of marriage? Religion actually has no place whatsoever in the discussion of whether to allow homosexual couples to marry, until the day that it involves the church also doing so. Since the current law actually excludes Christianity (and all other faiths for that matter) there is no justifiable reason for using it as an argument against the equal marriage bill.

Even still, I fail to see how a homosexual couple getting married actually changes anything or how it affects anyone else’s life? What, does a religious person die every time a gay couple marries and only the sound of a child clapping or laughter will bring them back? Oh no wait, that is fairies (yes I am being ironic). To quote a meme I saw the other day, “Claiming someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut when you are on a diet!”

As a final thought, did you notice the constant use of the term ‘Equal Marriage’? You really should. Of course, I am guilty of calling it ‘Gay Marriage’ in the past too, but it is a habit we really need to get out of. It isn’t ‘GAY’ marriage at all and actually it should just be Marriage. By calling it gay marriage we are just allowing ourselves to be, once again, separated from society. In the fight to get there we need to be clear about what it is we want and that isn’t just gay marriage; it is equal marriage for all!

After all, to quote the American comedian and actress Liz Feldman;

“It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or, as I like to call it, ‘Marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.”

I do, I do, I do, I do, I do

I should start out by making many apologies for the lack of blogs to those of you who have been reading. I do have a pretty reasonable excuse though. I spent a good portion of the year planning and preparing to get marr… Oh wait, ‘Civil Partnered’…

*Glittery tumbleweed floats past*

Sod that! It was a wedding and I am now married! It was a beautiful day and all the hard work really paid off. Everything about it just fills me with happy when I think about it. However, to prevent myself from gushing and experiencing a bout of happy tears I must move on. I only mention it, because it ties into my thoughts for a blog quite nicely.

Over the summer there has been a massive amount of coverage on the issue of equal marriage. What is even more impressive is that this discussion is not just restricted to the UK, it has become a pressing global matter with dozens of prominent political powers considering their stance. Sadly, the UK does seem to be a little behind and are certainly not leading the way on this front, but they are making progress.

On a frequent basis, we are being reminded that David Cameron is determined to press ahead and ensure that the UK reforms legislation would enable the LGBT community to ‘marry’ instead of to ‘civil partner’ (there is simply no way of saying it without it sounding like a horrid legal term for a start!). It could be considered impressive that Mr Cameron is showing such a strong opinion on the matter and he is certainly not caving in to the stereotypical and archaic opinions of the conservative backbenchers. Well, he has given them a ‘free vote’ but for all intensive purposes he is determined to see this go ahead.

“Yipee” is the shout from the gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals, “and now we love David Cameron and shall vote Conservative forever more”… or at least that is the way he would like it to play out. Pardon me for being rather cynical but whilst I welcome the right to get married and see another example of equality succeed, I do have some reservations about Cameron’s motive.

Take a look over the history of the Conservative party; historically they have been an enemy of equality and certainly an enemy to the LGBT community. I have alluded to my total disdain with their politics in the past but lest we forget the policy that the Conservative government introduced in 1988; a policy that sought to prevent a local authority from intentionally promoting homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. It also prevented schools from teaching the acceptability of homosexuality as what they called a ‘pretended’ family relationship.

I should really avoid getting into the number of ways in which this was disgustingly unfair, but I just can’t help getting wound up by it. It makes it sound like being homosexual is something that you are recruited into or that the LGBT community were intensively patrolling the streets, knocking on front doors and asking “have you found the way of the Gay?” Oh wait, now doesn’t that sound rather familiar… The last time I checked it was perfectly acceptable to actively promote religion as a way of life.

Now I will try not to go off the deep end here, but you have to ask, did gay people even WANT to ‘promote’ homosexuality in a way that was ‘recruiting’ people to the orientation? I don't think so somehow. They make it sound like there was a choice in the matter and that gay people could force others into some kind cult! Of course, we know that is complete and utter nonsense, what they did want was to promote the notion that it is acceptable to be gay. If there was any ‘promotion’ it was one of equality! (See, I’m using lots of exclamation marks now, can you see what it does to me!) I will indeed avoid the apparently pretended family relationship comment. Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean. Pretended????

Section 28 was a policy that was murky at best. It was never entirely clear as to what was considered ‘promotion’ and what wasn’t. At the time the National Union of Teachers made a statement to clarify their position: "While Section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counseling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution.”

Ultimately, it meant that schools and local authorities wouldn’t even listen to anything regarding homophobic bullying or even a pupil looking for advice when going through the minefield of emotion, fear and uncertainty that coming out can sometimes be. Teachers were terrified of touching the homosexual issue with anything that even remotely resembled a barge pole for fear of breaking the law.

For those readers who were unaware of it before now, can you see the amount of damage that this legislation would cause? Thankfully, the legislation was repealed in 2003 but it really isn’t that simple. For 15 years it was perfectly legal and acceptable for teachers to ignore homophobic bullying and allow it to continue. After all, the law was woolly enough to make a teacher question if they would be considered to be ‘promoting’ homosexuality if they stepped in to stop the bullying. There are a whole generation of children that were left vulnerable because of section 28 and I was one of them. Call me petty, but I don’t think the Conservative Party should ever be allowed to forget this. I am not saying that they should be made to pay for it for all time, but it is one of those history lessons that should never be forgotten nonetheless. There are more people out there that are totally unaware of the history of the LGBT and that is a little worrying; this is just one of the many events that people should be aware of.

So, yes, I am a little cynical when it comes to the Conservatives and the apparent U-turn on accepting the LGBT community and striving for Equality. Cameron is certainly saying all the right words but when it comes down to it, he is getting an almighty amount of grief from his party and backbenchers about it too. There was a ComRes poll at the weekend, of 100 Conservative Party constituency chairmen and it showed 71% think the policy should be abandoned whilst 47% believe David Cameron’s support for the move has cost them members.

So why would Cameron risk losing supporters by pushing ahead with marriage equality I wonder? One has to assume that he is likely to gain far more public support if he is seen to be in favour of marriage equality and therefore he is willing to face the displeasure of his own party in order to win a few more votes. By making the Conservatives the party that introduced equal marriage Cameron is trying to carve out a new legacy, one that he hopes will overshadow Section 28. One that will win the LGBT community vote.

Funny enough, I am not the only one that thinks it. Lord Ashcroft who is considered one of the Conservative Party’s most influential and respected supporters, said on the Conservative Home website that dropping equal marriage could undermine the party’s chances of winning an outright parliamentary majority at the next general election.

Is it Cameron’s own personal view, an attempt to expand the appeal of the party (something the Conservatives have done many times before) or is it a placatory move for the benefit of their coalition partners?

Cameron recognises that if he backs out of the equal marriage policy now, not only would they risk losing the LGBT vote or at least fail to entice us, but they could also lose substantially more voters who want to see their friends and family get the same equal rights. So the question here, is this Cameron led equal marriage policy a bid to improve the image of the Conservative brand or is it, much like the coalition itself, another marriage of convenience?

Dad & Dad?

There has been growing press attention over the last couple of years about gay couples that are in the process of becoming fathers and it has reminded me of a debate I had some time ago and my own conflicted opinions on the subject.

For many years growing up, long before I came out, one of the things I really wanted in life was to be a dad. Don’t ask me what made me want it, I just did. Since coming out, that feeling has dissipated and I now feel the complete opposite. Call me selfish but I love my life the way it is and I am not sure that I could genuinely devote that kind of time to a child. It is hard enough keeping on top of things as it is, without taking on a responsibility that is bigger than any full time job out there. At least I am honest in admitting my own flaw I suppose.

However, it runs deeper than that. Along with coming out, there was a lot of growing up; a lot of time for thought. Part of coming out includes considering the aspects of your life that will change, whether you want them to or not. Of course, we all try to carry on and not let it be the most important part of our own personality, but there is an element of change involved that cannot be ignored.

Considering the fact that I always wanted to be a dad you can imagine what one of those elements of change was going to be, for many reasons. At the time, being a dad became an impossibility the very moment I admitted to myself that I was gay. Back then gay marriage was still a topic of heated discussion, let alone the idea of gay adoption. I just accepted that being gay meant I was not going to be a dad and that it went with the territory so to speak. That doesn’t mean that the notion has not been revisited since. Every so often I would think about it and contemplate the possibilities only to realise that I was even more against the idea.

One major factor in my thoughts was my own childhood. In my early teens I suffered some bullying. It was all the usual things and in adulthood I realise that children can be very cruel. Some children are very good at pinpointing something as ammunition to exact their cruelty. It goes without saying that sending a child off to school as ‘the kid with gay dads’ would serve as perfect ammunition for a bully. Of course, as I have accepted, bullies will always find something that they can use against another, whether it be gay dads or not. However, I’ll be totally honest and say that I do not feel comfortable with the notion of sending a child into the world to suffer anything like the same bullying I felt. They may be bullied for any number of reasons but I certainly don’t want to add to those reasons and essentially hand the bullies ammunition on a plate. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have come quite far enough for the concept of gay parents to be acceptable. So again, I have convinced myself that children are not for me. Again, this is could be construed as being selfish. I certainly appear to be more concerned about avoiding my own guilt but if that is the case, then so be it.

This is not to say that I disagree with gay parenting though. I cannot make that clearer. A stronger person than me could face those challenges head on and win. I admit that I don’t think I can. I am totally pro gay parenting for those who want to. There are so many out there who are opposed to gay parenting and have their reasons, none of which really seem to hold any water.

"Every child should have a mother figure AND a father figure!"

This is always the fall back argument I would say. I hear it so often and it is such an easy statement to make but how true is it? How many children are out there who only have a mother OR a father, whether it be because of a failed relationship or worse, because one has passed away. Surely, in that situation, the child is lacking the mother or father figure they need for growing up; especially if the single parent does not enter another relationship. If a child MUST have a mother and father figure then I would also argue that our society is in serious trouble. In 2005 it was very publicly reported in the media that the number of lone parent families had soared to 1.88 million. It will certainly be interesting to see where that statistic stands after the most recent census results are revealed. Either way, that is a large chunk of the population that are lacking the apparently essential mother and father figure. Therefore, personally I feel that the argument is well and truly redundant. Yet, when you point this out it can still cause another thread or lifeline to anyone against gay adoption. The response being that, ‘at least the child will know who his father or mother was’ or more to the point that, ‘they came from a mother and a father’. Well, to be fair and with only a hint of sarcasm, I think it would be incredibly difficult to hide that rather obvious fact of life wouldn’t it? A gay couple are equally capable of ensuring that the child is aware of where they come from and how they got here. It is a rather unavoidable truth wouldn’t you say?

This whole argument is made under the assumption that only a straight couple can nourish the child with all of the relevant life skills, support and role models that are apparently required to lead to the child being a ’well rounded’ adult. Even then I would contest the truth in that little pearl of wisdom as the last time I heard the news, there are countless numbers of parents out there who clearly did not give their children the capacity to be a well rounded adult. That is without even looking at the parents that abuse their children. Unless the NSPCC are exaggerating and making up these stories, beating your own child is hardly the way to go about raising a child. Yet apparently it is still better that a ‘heterosexual’ couple should raise a child? Granted, the same abuse could happen with a gay couple but I am pretty sure that it is no more likely than that of a heterosexual couple.

There are countless numbers of children out there that require a home and a loving family; orphans or children in foster care that need all the love they can get. According to some, the only way they can get the full spectrum of that love and care is with a heterosexual couple. In this country there is a lengthy process to get through before you can adopt a child or enter foster care. It is a not a process that any old person would put themselves through. They do it because they want a child. They want to care for that child and subsequently contribute something to society. They do it because they want a child and are not necessarily able to do so by conventional means. Whatever happens, that child is far more likely to get all the love that they need. Personally, I would rather see a child go to a couple that really wants to be parents than a baby being born a casualty of a boozy night out. Of course, that ‘accident’ doesn’t automatically equate to bad parenting but it doesn’t make it any better than a gay couple parenting. Dare I say it, such an inauspicious beginning does not bode particularly well for the future of that child. Again, I am not claiming that this is always the case, but I still fail to see how a homosexual couple adopting can be any worse.

Ultimately, my personal feelings on the matter have not changed. I still do not want to be a parent. However, I fully support any other homosexual couple out there that does. I think Will Young should go for it. I see no reason why he couldn’t be as a good a parent as any heterosexual person out there. Personally, I will stick with having a cat; at least they never learn to talk...

Pink Soap Slip-Ups?

Over the past few weeks there seems to be a lot of fuss being made about the number of characters in the UK 'Soapland' that are gay.

The Daily Star newspaper ran a story this week that Coronation Street cast member Andrew Lancel had suggested the number of gay characters on the show was disproportionate to reality. A claim that Lancel has flatly denied via twitter. This came shortly after a critique - written by Brian Sewell - was published by none other than (no need for a drum roll... really...) The Daily Mail - oh the surprise. In his article he called the classic British soap, 'The Sodom of the North' and claimed that its representation of the ‘queer community’ was unrealistic. This evokes all manner of discussion points, starting with my first.

I have always believed that soaps are 'Hyper-Realistic' if that is even a term. They take everyday situations and inflate them to a level beyond bursting point that is considered 'entertaining'. The never ending stream of affairs, murder and mayhem that we see on screen is a far cry from reality isn't it? I daresay, our serial dramas would barely hint at the ‘reality of a whole street’ if they were followed over a course of years. If my Facebook is any kind of indicator the soap shows may be selling us a little short... :-P

Either way, soap operas will always push the boundaries and fulfill the thirst of the audience for even more affairs, murder and mayhem in even more inventive ways. So why on earth would it be a shock if they have over-inflated the number of gay people within a community for the exact same reason? How is it any different from the clear portrayal of a community that all live and work in the same location and none of them are commuters? (In fact no one ever seems to commute into these places either - I could very easily digress into several other blogs here). How is it any different to the numbers of murders that happen in the same community (I should really stop now!)

If your street saw this much action I would advise you run, run now, run faster than me running for free flights and tickets to Cher in Vegas (any offers by the way?) That is just it though, despite portraying "realistic" situations, soaps do precisely the opposite. Hence the idea of a hyper or even a fake reality and that is exactly why we love them.

In terms of Corrie, it isn't exactly a stretch of the imagination that there would be more homosexual residents than in say, Emmerdale. Especially considering the fact Corrie is set in Manchester, and not far from the city centre. Manchester has one of the most popular 'gay districts' in the UK. Given Canal Street's popularity, more gay people are likely to be there and the surrounding areas; drawn like a moth to flame. I should know, I lived there myself for a time.

Besides, if you are trying to convince me that out of a current main cast of 56 (without even looking at other recurring characters) the fact 3 of them are homosexual is an exaggeration, I think you might want to do some more homework. Back in 2005 it was announced by the government - and widely reported - that 6% of the population was homosexual. That means 6 people in every 100 or 3 in every 50. How ironic that Coronation Street is pretty much spot on then! What I would also throw into this chain of thought is the consideration towards the number of people that may not have chosen to reveal their sexuality back in 2005 but would in 2011. Therefore, could that percentage be even higher? I daresay it is a possibility.

If that is the case then Corrie, I am disappointed at your underachievement! The show is clearly disproportionate to reality. Get some more 'gays' in! Oh and don't even get me started on the missing ethnic minorities...

The Final Sporting Countdown?

Steven Davies and Gareth Thomas both enjoy a fair share of limelight; Both of them, first and foremost, are professional sportsmen at an international level, playing for England (in Cricket and Rugby respectively, just in case you didn’t know…). For me personally, it is not so much their sporting attributes that make them stand out from the crowd, (after all, the only sport I truly ’follow’ is Formula 1), but their courage in taking a step into the completely unknown.

Back in late 2009, Thomas, publicly announced that he was gay. This made him the first international level Rugby player to step out of the closet. This was followed earlier this year when Davies also took the brave step and revealed, quite openly, that he was gay, also a first for cricket. Naturally, in both cases, people have been quick to point how it doesn’t change the sport and the way they play. They are still international class players and that will not change because of their personal life and too right as well! What is more important is that they are representing the country and playing their game at the top of their field. Yet, nevertheless, the fact they have come out has propelled them into a slightly different league. They were already role models to many youngsters out there but they have been the first in professional sport to send such a positive message to the masses. How many countless others out there are terrified of coming out because they are surrounded by other men in both a professional or even amateur level? Forgive me for thinking that there is a possibility of a trend emerging here. Rugby is often referred to as a particularly ‘male’ sport and therefore an ‘out’ player in the England squad always seemed unlikely unless it was a specific gay team. It is the same across all sports. Growing up, sport in general was always the one area where being gay simply was not accepted and I wondered if it would ever change. At the top of that list for giving a rather anti-gay impression is, as we all know, football. History has shown us the result of a professional level football player attempting to come out. Justin Fashanu found neither tolerance or acceptance back in 1990. Instead he was greeted by colleagues statements to the press that ’gays had no place in team sport’ and the treatment he received from the football fans and their terrace chanting was beyond the usual football banter. His initially promising career stalled as part of the backlash and ultimately, he committed suicide in 1998. It certainly isn’t much encouragement for any other professional level football player to come out is it?

Where does the hatred really come from though? Is it from within the sport itself where officials believe they need to keep the door closed to gay people? Are the officials under the impression that is how the fans want it? Do the fans of various sports still believe in those Neanderthal viewpoints? I would like to believe that those views are dying out but that can only be proved by example. Both Thomas and Davies have stepped up to the plate and shown that their being gay has no bearing on their sporting ability and have every right to be where they are. Thankfully, the media opinions and also the fans of the sports have supported that notion and have therefore shown the changing attitudes towards gay people in general.
In my eyes, there is a possibility that pace could be gained here and the question is not so much if but when. When will the next professional level sportsmen take that brave step and leave the closet. Even more importantly, perhaps, is which sport will it be in? With rugby and now cricket showing a very professional support of their ‘out’ players, which sport is next? It could be argued that Football has seen a professional level player come out in Anton Hysen, however, that is in a lower level Swedish team. Whether this will have any influence over UK football remains to be seen, but it is still a step in the right direction.

It would seem that more eyes than ever are watching football and waiting. Waiting patiently for that show of tolerance and acceptance. Waiting for the day when one of the England football squad willingly, (without being hounded and threatened by the media either I should add) announces that he is gay. If people are not expecting or even demanding it, they should be! It is definitely arguable that if British football were to see a successful, respected and gay player treated with acceptance it will be a remarkable day for sporting history in general. I would go so far as to say that it would have a massive impact on the attitudes of the fans of sport too and would pave the way for other men in any sport or even other professions to come out without fear of their career being destroyed because of their sexuality.

Now of course, it would be rather ridiculous of me to say that there is definitely a member of the current England Football Squad that is gay. It is just as possible that none of them are… still, that’s never going to stop a mind wondering when and who though, is it?…