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

Steven Davies and Gareth Thomas both enjoy a fair share of the 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 out 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.

Swedish furniture giants ‘Ikea’ have recently launched a new marketing campaign in Italy which involves a poster showing a gay couple, holding hands under the headline “we are open to all families”.

On the surface of it, you would be forgiven for assuming that I am 100% supportive of this campaign. It is very pro-gay and is bound to ruffle a few feathers. Whilst I support the notion in principle, I do have some doubts.

The Italian Prime Minister (and newspaper owner no less - I bet that is a well-balanced newspaper with no political allegiance :-P) Silvio Berlusconi, has accused Ikea of trying to be provocative. I am going to play devil’s advocate here and say I can almost see his point. In order for this campaign to work, it must run alongside other families to stress the point that Ikea is open to ALL families. This, in my opinion, would be a brilliant and bold statement for the company to make. If the campaign only features a gay couple then I have to, at least partially, agree that Ikea is being provocative to simply garner more attention and column inches. Not running it alongside other families would highlight us as being different even further. All of which is ‘off the back’ of gay people like we are a marketing product.

It is not the first time that the marketing of Ikea has come under scrutiny. In 2008, Polish Catholics got extremely uptight about a campaign showing a gay couple shopping for dining tables. They claimed the advert was ‘promoting’ homosexuality. Note the use of the word promoting, again, like we are a marketing tool. It can certainly be said that Ikea is generating more negative attitudes from the crowds that need no extra ammo. Do we really need that sort of extra attention?

Despite those doubts, I find I’m in two minds. Part of me really appreciates Ikea’s acceptance of gay people and its classification of us as families. One way or another, it is another step forward in equality, providing it is equal of course. The whole point about equality is that we are treated like any other person would be and this should be applicable everywhere. That means rather than pushing a campaign that has a gay couple as the sole icon, a diverse cultural mix is needed. It certainly doesn’t help that the end-user of these campaigns, those to whom it is marketed, are also claiming that it is being provocative. If they were to have a diverse range of ‘families’ they would be covering themselves, strengthen their campaign and shooting those criticisms down in flames.

Ultimately, whether a marketing tool or not, it is about time that all couples were accepted as families and should be portrayed in the media (including marketing) accordingly. If this so happens to cause a little controversy along the way then who am I to criticise? Those who are offended by this sort of imagery ought to take a step back and take a long hard look at where that feeling of offence and negativity comes from. Perhaps they should also consider the possibility that being offended, and treating others with such hatred, means that they lack the ability to move with the times. Everyone, with no exceptions, should have the ability to question their own opinions from time to time.

Sometimes they may just find the opinion they have been clinging to for so long will need to change. If they can’t alter their opinion about anything then we have no chance of making this world a better place. If the people over at Ikea are going to be amongst those at the front of the campaign to challenge out-dated opinion I raise a glass to them. I may even consider shopping there.

Thinking further on it, I actually hope Ikea go full steam ahead and put this marketing campaign in the UK too. My suggestion would be to put a billboard size version of the poster in the East End of London… right near Tower Hamlets perhaps…

Thanks for reading x

Right now, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) groups in locations all over the world are gearing up for this year’s run of Pride events that are to be the party of all parties. Sydney, London, Delhi, Johannesburg, Tel Aviv, Madrid, Amsterdam, Cardiff to name but a few all hold their own version of these events.

Look around and you will find many definitions of what a Pride event is all about, the most common being a celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender culture as well as being an opportunity for demonstration and protest for legal rights. Yet, despite the positive intentions Pride is still as divisive as it is inclusive.

There are a growing number of critics within the LGBT community that feel there is no longer a need for the events and actually, it does more damage than good. Even in the most unlikely of countries, LGBT people are achieving the equal rights that they deserve, and the number of countries backing down and removing laws against homosexuality is ever increasing. With this equality spreading, some may ask… Do we need an event that could be perceived as doing the opposite and segregating us further?

Every day, we, as a community, strive to achieve an equality that means that we are treated exactly like everybody else without discrimination in any way and then once a year (or more, if you, like me, want to travel to as many as humanly possible) we get together to parade through the streets and unintentionally point out how different we are, or at the very least, can be.

Of course, pride events are an opportunity to throw inhibitions away and party without fear of recriminations and so there are a large number of people who do exactly that. Some will don their best frock, wig and tiara, others will break out the leather. Some will be in the skimpiest of undies and others will squeeze themselves into….. well, the list just goes on doesn’t it? We all know that sub-cultures exist, to the point that there is a name for each, and Pride events allow those who live their life within that culture to be completely open and frank about it.

Naturally, it does have repercussions, even in the most liberal-minded of places. The world media is prepared to run stories about the Pride events, which is an achievement in itself. No longer is the world hiding away from the reality that LGBT people exist. How could they when pictures and videos of drag queens, bears and half-naked muscle men are so actively used in reporting? This, in turn, begs the question, what is the image of the LGBT people?

The media, now in support of the Pride events, give reports and show off the flamboyant and the more outlandish costumes that are on display but do they show the images of anyone not in costume? I daresay a lot of readers know exactly where this point is going. Certain areas of the media have harboured an obsession with sensationalism and in turn, the masses (not just those in the LGBT camp) are quite willing to give it to them. In LGBT culture this often means donning an even more extravagant costume and so the escalation continues and even more extreme images appear for the entire world to see. If you have a think about the types of articles you have seen related to Pride events it is clear that they are often non-representative of the LGBT community as a whole. At this point, it is worth noting that it doesn’t just happen with Pride, but with any form of protest, irrespective of sexuality. The more sensational it is, the more likely it is going to attract press coverage.

So now there is the possibility of a public perception that LGBT people ALL dress and behave in this extravagant and indulgent way that sets us apart from ‘straight’ culture. Some critics would go so far as to say that this kind of behaviour only fuels stereotypes and opens the LGBT community up to ridicule whilst others, go further, and believe that it could even hamper the efforts of those fighting for equality. On one hand, we have the critics who believe the pride events have become damaging and on the other, we have the activists who see this merely as misrepresentation in the media.

As clichéd as it may sound, it seems that the original message of Pride events has somehow been lost. Early ‘Pride’ events were certainly more about protest when Craig Rodwell first rallied support for the first pride parade with this statement and vision:

That the Annual Reminder, in order to be more relevant, reach a greater number of people, and encompass the ideas and ideals of the larger struggle in which we are engaged-that of our fundamental human rights-be moved both in time and location.
We propose that a demonstration be held annually on the last Saturday in June in New York City to commemorate the 1969 spontaneous demonstrations on Christopher Street and this demonstration be called CHRISTOPHER STREET LIBERATION DAY. No dress or age regulations shall be made for this demonstration.
We also propose that we contact Homophile organizations throughout the country and suggest that they hold parallel demonstrations on that day. We propose a nationwide show of support.

The fundamental ‘message’ here is the fight for equality. Over the following years there was more of this fighting, sometimes even in the literal sense. In some areas, such as Russia, this fight continues. In the UK, it has been almost forty years since 1972 and the first London Pride and we find that we have achieved a massive amount in the struggle for equality. Being LGBT has become a far less taboo issue here and in many other nations around the world. Laws have been created that protect us from discrimination and even institutionalise the ideal that homophobia is wrong. So here we are, wondering whether we even need Pride events anymore. The arguments for both viewpoints are equally compelling and neither perspective is wrong or right.

However, there is still a long way to go. The laws and protections are in place but are social attitudes changing? In the workplace, discrimination has been massively minimised for instance, but could I walk down the road hand in hand with my partner in my home town without having to deal with homophobic or even violent attack? I will be honest and say I don’t think we are quite in that place yet, but it is getting there. More and more children are brought up in this country with the mantra that being gay is ok. Of course, there are still those that completely disagree but those numbers are diminishing slowly.

It is the norm that a Pride event carries some kind of political agenda, some protest of an area within society where LGBT communities are still discriminated against. In recent years there has been protest over the rules relating to gay ‘marriage’ and same sex couples adopting. Again, some social attitudes and the laws that breed these attitudes are changing. Ultimately this makes homophobia far more difficult to perpetrate but it does still exist out there.

Perhaps then, we, as a community do need to focus on the message that Pride events are sending out and what we are campaigning for. It is all very well having the laws to protect us when we find ourselves a victim of homophobia but we also need to be campaigning to ensure that those homophobic incidents do not occur in the first place. This begs the question; Should we ditch the drag or should we be pushing the media to make sure they cover a bigger representation of the LGBT community?

For me, Pride has always been an opportunity for me to reflect on the homophobia that I experienced in my years growing up. A friend recently said it was like a big fingers up (trust me when I say that this is much nicer edited way of putting it) to all the people that inflicted homophobia on him and I certainly understand those sentiments. It is a time to be able to do the things I feel unable to do in public, like holding hands with my partner in the middle of the street. It is time to be out there and proud of the fact I am gay, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Over the last forty years people have fought long and hard to get us this far and to give us that voice which allows us to declare ‘I am gay’ without reproach and I thank those people for it. I thank them by attending Pride, by standing side by side with fellow members of the community and by showing that I am proud of what I am. I thank them by remembering all that has been achieved and everything that is left to attain.

If it just so happens that I am dressed in a full Cher (circa 1989) outfit then so be it!

Hello there and welcome to 'Now That's Just Gay'

My name is Mark, I am 27 and if you haven't already guessed... I am gay.

My aims and intentions for this blog are to offer a form of social commentary, discussion and debate of life issues from a gay perspective, or more to the point - MY perspective.

Many of the blogs will relate to gay lifestyle and some will focus on a broader scale in a more general life theme. Every so often I will also be reviewing movies (I am becoming increasingly more interested in Gay Cinema) and music or anything else I can open up to discussion.

I am a strong believer that healthy debate helps us all learn more about one another and therefore I welcome any readers comments and thoughts. The same applies to suggestions; if you have a particular subject matter that you think I should cover, drop me a message and I will see what I can do.

Naturally, with the debate often comes sensitive material or opinions that some may find offensive and while I do think all opinions should at least be heard, please be aware that any comments that incite hatred, bullying, intentional disrespect towards me or another reader etc are subject to removal.

With all that out of the way, all that is left for me to say is thank you for joining me this far and I look forward to having discussions with you soon... Very soon! (My first full blog will be published imminently)