The Revenge of Winston Smith
Observations on the absurdity of everyday life interspersed with rambling rants against religion · big brother government policies · conservatism · right-wingers and obsessive capitalists · xenophobes, racists, sexists and bigots in general · tabloid journalism · the Daily Mail · self-professed moral guardians..... and much much more!
- - - o O o - - -
Category: homophobia [ home ]
Civil partnerships for gay couples
Posted by Tim on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 | Permalink
Civil partnerships for gay couples become legal in the UK today.
It's not relevant to me on a personal level (not being gay and all that) but I like the fact that progress is being made. Ten years ago too many people would have been up in arms over the idea. Twenty years ago, anyone suggesting it would have been ridiculed then ignored as a crank. Before that, I doubt if anyone would have dared to seriously suggest such a thing in the first place.
It's also good to see that many of the of the contributors to the BBC's have your say on the subject seem to be in favour.
The people who are against it fall into three categories:
1. The ones that talk about sin and mythical deities being pissed off and stuff.
Well, not everyone is religious, and even many who are support this. They are civil partnerships anyway, so religion should have nothing to do with it (although even marriage is a legal partnership before anything else).
2. The ones who have a fondness for talking about the "eroding of traditional family values".
I really hate this sort of conservatism. And anyway, it's not as if allowing gay partnerships is going to stop people having heterosexual ones!
"Once you legitimise one type of un-natural partnership soon everyone will want the same rights and people will be marrying their dogs and the human race will die out ... "
3. The people who presumably aren't aware of the expression the bullshit before the but - i.e.
"I'm not homophobic, but ..."
Basically, if you are against these partnerships, you are a bigot. Simple as that.
UPDATE:
This BBC News story from Northern Ireland, where it became legal a couple of days ago, is interesting - particularly the bit about the religious protests:
Jeers? What a bunch of arseholes!
It's not relevant to me on a personal level (not being gay and all that) but I like the fact that progress is being made. Ten years ago too many people would have been up in arms over the idea. Twenty years ago, anyone suggesting it would have been ridiculed then ignored as a crank. Before that, I doubt if anyone would have dared to seriously suggest such a thing in the first place.
It's also good to see that many of the of the contributors to the BBC's have your say on the subject seem to be in favour.
The people who are against it fall into three categories:
1. The ones that talk about sin and mythical deities being pissed off and stuff.
Well, not everyone is religious, and even many who are support this. They are civil partnerships anyway, so religion should have nothing to do with it (although even marriage is a legal partnership before anything else).
2. The ones who have a fondness for talking about the "eroding of traditional family values".
I really hate this sort of conservatism. And anyway, it's not as if allowing gay partnerships is going to stop people having heterosexual ones!
"Once you legitimise one type of un-natural partnership soon everyone will want the same rights and people will be marrying their dogs and the human race will die out ... "
3. The people who presumably aren't aware of the expression the bullshit before the but - i.e.
"I'm not homophobic, but ..."
Basically, if you are against these partnerships, you are a bigot. Simple as that.
UPDATE:
This BBC News story from Northern Ireland, where it became legal a couple of days ago, is interesting - particularly the bit about the religious protests:
The Reverend Doctor Ian Brown, from the Free Presbyterian Church, was among the more vocal: "The fact of the matter is that God does not endorse this, shall never endorse this and we are standing for the word of God and for the protection of our children."
The protesters' message was reinforced by an advertising trailer with a giant hoarding which read: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted."
Although one wag tried his best to antagonise the crowd with a placard reading: "The earth is flat." [heh heh!]
As the taxi carrying the couple edged its way through the crowd, the jeers from protesters competed with the cheers from supporters.
Jeers? What a bunch of arseholes!
Almost wish I was gay
Posted by Tim on Monday, July 05, 2004 | Permalink
I've just been looking at coverage of the Gay Pride event in London last Saturday. I admire these people who stand up to the middle aged, middle class, conservative-voting bigots who are constantly going on about outlawing anything they don't consider to be "normal" behaviour. I almost wish I could have joined in (the event looked like a lot of fun!)
I myself am not gay, simply because I don't fancy blokes. I like women, with all their soft and curvy bits. However I cannot understand why some people are so "anti-gay". Why does it bother these people what other people get up to? Why do so many people want to stop other people doing what they want to do?
There is no justification for homophobia, just as there is no justification for racism. Yet it is still an issue for many people. The age of consent (in England) is sixteen for heterosexuals, eighteen for homosexuals - why? And then there's the whole "section 28" thing, where schools aren't allowed to "promote" homosexual lifestyles. Why not? People are what they are and straight people aren't suddenly going to decide to try homosexuality because someone has talked to them about different lifestyles (although what if they did? Whatever happened to personal choice?)
The tabloids always make a point of mentioning if someone is gay, when it's usually irrelevant (you never see headlines along the lines of "heterosexual Tim Sellers, 31, recently stated that .....").
If anyone can offer me a reason why it's "wrong to be gay" I'd be interested to hear it.
I wont accept:
It's disgusting (a matter of opinion)
It's un-natural (so what - most things ordinary people do in their ordinary lives are "un-natural")
It's not normal (again, so what? Aren't we all individuals?)
It's immoral (its amoral - i.e. morals have nothing to do with it)
It's sinful (only relevant if you're a bible quoting fanatic who believes in a mythical deity).
I myself am not gay, simply because I don't fancy blokes. I like women, with all their soft and curvy bits. However I cannot understand why some people are so "anti-gay". Why does it bother these people what other people get up to? Why do so many people want to stop other people doing what they want to do?
There is no justification for homophobia, just as there is no justification for racism. Yet it is still an issue for many people. The age of consent (in England) is sixteen for heterosexuals, eighteen for homosexuals - why? And then there's the whole "section 28" thing, where schools aren't allowed to "promote" homosexual lifestyles. Why not? People are what they are and straight people aren't suddenly going to decide to try homosexuality because someone has talked to them about different lifestyles (although what if they did? Whatever happened to personal choice?)
The tabloids always make a point of mentioning if someone is gay, when it's usually irrelevant (you never see headlines along the lines of "heterosexual Tim Sellers, 31, recently stated that .....").
If anyone can offer me a reason why it's "wrong to be gay" I'd be interested to hear it.
I wont accept:
It's disgusting (a matter of opinion)
It's un-natural (so what - most things ordinary people do in their ordinary lives are "un-natural")
It's not normal (again, so what? Aren't we all individuals?)
It's immoral (its amoral - i.e. morals have nothing to do with it)
It's sinful (only relevant if you're a bible quoting fanatic who believes in a mythical deity).