You may remember my blog a couple of years ago discussing the debate on 'pride' events. If you haven't read it, make the jump and go HERE now.
My feelings on the matter are clear, there is definitely a need for Pride events given that there are still roads to travel in the goal desire for equality. That word comes up a lot nowadays, 'equality', and I agree that an event that appears to give us a voice to scream "I am different" isn't exactly the best statement in advocating equality. Especially when it is only the most 'sensationalist' of us that is portrayed in the media - just to be clear, I don't think that these people are behaving in a sensationalist way but it is the media portraying us that way.

I also return to my feelings that actually, pride events are an opportunity to respectfully celebrate those who have spent their lives in a war in order to give us the freedom to declare our sexuality without fear of recriminations. In essence, that is what a pride event has become but now we need to take it to the next level.

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.

…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)

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 is 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 a 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 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 into the stereotypical and archaic opinions of the conservative backbenchers. Well, he has given them a ‘free vote’ but for all intents and 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 forevermore”… 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 counselling 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 is 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?

Thanks for stopping by x

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 conflicting opinions on the subject.

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 the 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 fulfil 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 the 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...

Thanks for reading x