Gay Marriage Matters: Why You Should Care

Hey there blog-munchers! How are we doing? Fabulous.

This is part 2 of my gay marriage matters entries, if you were unfortunate enough to have missed out on part 1 then please follow this link to a full explanation of how to put down classic anti-gay marriage arguments. Now this blog will be my attempt to explain why it’s important that you care about the gay marriage debate. If you’re from my native United Kingdom then I imagine this will be a particularly strange issue to wrap your head around. The debate has been resolved hasn’t it? There were some odd protests by strange hypocritical scotsmen in funny clothes but Dave Cameron basically sorted it all out with no alarms. There have been no riots, no extreme right-wing reactions and not a single orgy is in sight. On the one hand you’re quite right, it has been sorted and this country is elegantly mincing down the yellow brick road to equality city.

However, as we put our feet up in Britain we are at risk of voluntarily turning a blind eye to the devastating effect of bigotry against this minority. It’s one of the most depressing facts that more countries criminalise homosexuality than condone legal unions between homosexuals.  Our international blindness has led us to a feeling of national contentment and the assumption that things are basically alright with the world. Readers may even feel ever so slightly smug that in the place they call home homosexuality has been legal for their entire lives. However, a cursory glance over the history of gay rights will tell you that the chances are your country has only had these rights for less than a century – most likely a couple of decades.

As an aside – it is worthy of note that an even stranger quirk of the world I live in is that in more than a handful of countries it is actually legal to be a lesbian but not to be a male homosexual. I can practically hear your jeers but please contain yourselves as I review the sexuality ethical standards of the leading developed nations.

United Kingdom:

Legal since 1967 (England & Wales) 1981 (Scotland) 1982 (Northern Ireland)

Civil Partnerships created 2005

Gay Marriage legalised 2013

Gender Recognition Act protects LGBT 2004

Not too bad all in all! But the horrendous torture we subjected Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and countless anonymous others to in the early 20^th century will hang over us forever. For these poor people the order of the day used to be rehabilitation, chemical castration and electro-shock therapy to cure their ‘illness’.

USA:

Legal since 2003

Gay Marriage/Adoption/LGBT rights varies by state

Allowed to serve openly in the military since 2011

Things are definitely improving in the US and it’s refreshing to see that they have a serving government that federally recognises the legality of gay marriage but it is disheartening to note how tragically recent the flood of progression has been. They all need to watch the film Milk.

China:

Legal since 1997

No legal recognition whatsoever

It’s hard not to feel that homosexuals are sub-citizen in the most populous country in the world.

Australia:

Legal since 1994

Gay marriage banned federally under the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 (though there was an attempt made this year to legalise it but at least one house of parliament in each state voted against).

Rather surprising to me that there is a fairly strong anti-gay marriage sentiment in the outback but the signs are that this will change

Russia:

Legal since 1993

No legal recognition whatsoever

Cannot serve in the military

Enforced ban on homosexual ‘propaganda’ that may influence children

Homophobia: An International Commitment

So far I’ve only laid out intolerably broad analyses of the ways homosexuals are treated internationally but now I’ll take us a little further into the waters of specificity. Below I will list news stories that caught my eye over the past year and a half regarding gay rights around the world. I implore that you dig up the most empathy you can possibly feel and imagine what it must be like to exist in a state that deplores your existence.

N.B. As a favour to you I thought I should point out that it’s not essential that you should read anything but the headline from these news stories.

Returning briefly to Russia I want to attempt to emphasise the full importance of what Putin and the duma have done. They are a country that will have the privilege of hosting the World Cup and Winter Olympics within the next 5 years, and as willing visitors we become complicit in accepting their degradation of homosexuals within their own country. I don’t expect to inspire a boycott but I do encourage you to spare a thought for the persecuted away from the glamour of the international sport on show. You might be interested to know that Putin compared homosexuality to paedophilia when speaking on the issue. Think of THAT meme lovers when you poke your sharp critical satire up American Republican noses then admire Putin for his hard-nosed ex-KGB inspired thuggery i.e. all the manly stuff he gets up to (usually topless).

This is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and although this show of petulance doesn’t bring bloodshed it is barbaric nonetheless to tacitly wish for the declining health of the sexual minority.

This is just bizarre!

It’s stunning to me that one of the first countries to remove any sanctions against homosexuality from their constitution should be so opposed to equal rights for homosexuals.

The proposal for the infamous ‘kill the gays’ law rolled out this year and was promised as a christmas present to voters. Fortunately, this bill has been revamped to not include the death penalty for homosexuality but merely a hefty prison sentence due to international criticism. Though it is a little disconcerting that we don’t exactly know what’s going on with the bill now as the Ugandan government have opted to discuss the bill in secret so that international critics won’t lambast their views.

We think we’re sitting pretty here in Britain but it would be a myopic mistake for us to forget that we are (regrettably) a member of a commonwealth that largely acts against the interests of gay people.

It may surprise you to learn that this story isn’t focused on the condemnation of yet another republican. But in fact the attempts of organisations like the American Center for Law and Justice to export their homophobic prejudices to other countries through offshoots such as the East African Centre for Law and Justice that attempt to lobby against foreign governments (in this case Zimbabwe) that support LGBT rights. The moral of the story is that we shouldn’t be afraid to export our own pro-LGBT views because these people certainly don’t hesitate.

It may be amazing to people to discover that this popular holiday destination is the home of religious barbarism, which has manifested itself this year in the violent death of the country’s first gay and secular blogger.

“Homosexuality is anti-god, anti-human, and anti-civilization. Homosexuals are not welcome in the Gambia. If we catch you, you will regret why you are born. I have buffalos from South Africa and Brazil and they never date each other. We are ready to eat grass but we will not compromise on this. Allowing homosexuality means allowing satanic rights. We will not allow gays here.”

Religion: The True Abomination

It’s no secret that the trends reveal that the more religious a society is, the less likely it is that there will be sexual equality.

This occasionally manifests itself in the most outrageous OTT expressions of contempt. This past year we have heard the most strange things from the holy elite; notably Cardinal Keith O’Brien over here in Britain who declared it an “abberation” before gratifyingly being outed as a slave to his own homosexual urges.

For a list of other famous anti-gay advocates that got outed: http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne?format=SLIDESHOW&page=1

Keeping up the traditions established by the late morally bankrupt Pope John Paul II, we find Pope Benedict suggesting he supports the previously mentioned ‘kill the gays’ law in Uganda by blessing the proposer of the hideous bill. While not as bad as his predecessor who condemned millions of africans to an unpleasant death at the hands of AIDS when he decreed that condom use was the world’s greatest evil, he certainly had a good stab at the title. More eagle-eyed followers may have noticed that his Christmas speech a few years back focused rather unnecessarily on the depravity of homosexuality.

Pope Francis: Saviour of the LGBT. This man has been heralded as a new hope for new age liberalism; seemingly invoking the crusty old men of the cloth to accept the movements of the society around them with his sporadic, subtle comments that imply his support of gay marriage. However, actions speak louder than words and this priest claims to have been excommunicated by Pope Francis because he supported women’s ordination and LGBT rights.

Maybe the Australian Priest is talking bollocks, the Church never officially explained why he was excommunicated so his summations could just be a load of rubbish. However, Pope Francis’ words of wisdom to Hollande are more damning. Actions speak louder than words…though in this case it’s mainly his words.

Pew conducted a survey using over 38,000 Muslims across 39 countries and the results revealed that 75% reject homosexuality and favour the implementation of Sharia punishments.

Many people tell me that their religion has nothing to do with it, that Muslim views are based on the political and historical context of their countries. However, I think this story from Norway suggests that the faith itself has a lot to do with influencing people across borders.

Again, the religious bodies aren’t afraid to export their views and attempt to influence the minds of our children. It is important that we are courageous enough to do the same. You will notice that the common theme through all of these stories is that governments and religious institutions find homosexuality morally and spiritually bankrupt. Well I ask you now, which side of the moral fence do you want to be on? Because it seems to me that the age-old keepers of morality know nothing about it.

The Cherry Picked 

The final place to run for anyone that disbelieves the seriousness of the issue is to assert that I am cherry picking and while I cannot claim that this list of stories is comprehensive, I do claim that cherry-picking does nothing to distort the severity of the issue.  I have picked out this last group of stories because they represent the news items that you will have forgotten, that you will have glazed over as they only tell us about a couple of people dying at the hands of bigotry. But I really want you to think about how many of these one-offs you’ve seen, I am certain that if you spent a couple of hours looking up what happens to gay people around the world then you would find a higher number of dead bodies than people you know. After a while the deaths stop feeling like unimportant isolated cases.

The final image depicts the whole crux of the issue for me, we may be over gay rights in this country and that’s fantastic. Gay Pride is something that we enjoy as a nation and I even know many heterosexual people that go to enjoy the celebration. But it is so important for us not to become complacent, we must remember that few in the world are so lucky. Please do enjoy Gay Pride but never lose sight of the fact that while you sing and dance the people you celebrate across the world do not have that opportunity for fear of exclusion, abuse, torture, imprisonment and death.

That is why the bill that our little country passed this summer was so important, it says to the world that this is the direction that civilised society is going and you must all follow.

Gay Marriage Matters: What To Say To A Homophobe And Why You Shouldn’t Call Them Homophobic

Hello there blogosexuals! How are we? Top stuff!

Never one to miss the opportunity to moan over an issue that appears settled, I have written the next two posts about gay marriage. Part 1 will hopefully serve as a helpful Q & A formatted list of how you should respond to the all too numerous gay equality opposition that exists all over the world, even in liberal Europe. Part 2 will explain why you should give a (non-literal) fuck about the whole issue. But for now, on with the show!

We’re entering the dying throes of the year and our country is different to the one that welcomed 2013. England and Wales have now joined a group of 17 nations that have officially legalised gay marriage and it’s awesome. It’s been a long summer of in-fighting within the often irritable bowels of parliament but the issue has finally been resolved. No matter what happens next I will always be grateful for David Cameron’s tenacity in chasing up the issue at great risk to himself and his party. Who am I? I consider myself one of the vocal members of a largely silent majority that supports equal rights for homosexuals. I myself am not partial to sexy wrestling with the chaps but if it were only gay people that fought for gay rights then nothing would happen. The first part of this blog entry will serve as a reminder of the counter-arguments you might consider employing should you debate someone that opposes gay rights. I don’t hope to add anything to the argument nor do I expect to present it in a more beautiful way than the proper writers that have gone before me. The argument for equality has previously been robustly mounted by countless thoughtful individuals who have had to exhibit far more determination and bravery than I ever will.

“It’s just not natural Dave! That isn’t where you put it!”

Biology has nothing to say about the legal unionising of a couple and it doesn’t say how we morally should behave. The important distinction to make here is that it should not be considered unnatural for gay people to have sex because it won’t result in babies. Sex for pleasure, masturbation, celibacy and condom use are equally unnatural to someone who takes the procreation position. Obviously gay sex and gay relationships are natural or the practice wouldn’t be as ubiquitous as it is. It’s natural for a certain percentage of our population to feel attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite sex. Furthermore, it’s natural for the animal kingdom to produce homosexual groups; at least 1500 animals have been documented to exhibit homosexual behaviour in some way, one of the best examples being rams who commit for life to a specific same-sex partner. It’s also important to realise that marriage these days is a legal union that recognises a commitment between two people, and there’s no biological evidence to suggest that gay people are inferior at loving each other. If anything, when I turn to my favourite copy of heat magazine I am reminded how ineffective the people that our society admires are at maintaining their special union.

If you have a gay couple that have been with each other for their entire lives into old age (often under much more trying circumstances than you or I will ever have to encounter) it’s impossible to conclude that they have a different relationship to everyone else. Man COMMITS FOR LIFE to woman, (wo)man COMMITS FOR LIFE to (wo)man – what difference do you see? From what I can tell there are many scumbags who can procreate together and raise their kids in awful conditions, I do not see them as being better by definition just because they have the machinery to make a baby. In fact the ability to procreate seems to me to be one of the smaller issues when it comes to whether you should get married or not. Firstly and most importantly, do you like each other enough to commit for life? Secondly, if you want to bring up a family are you capable, loving parents? Thirdly, can you actually make a baby or shall we find one for you? Marriage and procreation are completely divisible.

“But Gawd hates fags”

True, this viewpoint has been adopted by various religions and that is fine; but at the end of the day if you have the ceremony, shout hallelujah and don’t sign the paper, you’re not married. Marriage is deeply entrenched within our past, it’s so old it even predates Christianity! That’s why it’s important for people to remind everyone else that the Church’s rights to religious marriages will not be infringed upon. It makes it more upsetting that the Church insists that it is the oppressed party when it just isn’t, a gay marriage bill won’t change anything for them. They will still marry straight people, the state will just be allowed to marry gay people, there’s absolutely no crossover. Furthermore, if there were to be any crossover then I would insist that everyone complained. It is not the right of the state to decide how a church should run as long as it complies with the law. If the Church wants to be bigoted then we need to let them be bigoted. If they don’t want to allow female bishops, if they want to claim that condoms are evil, or if they want to claim that homosexuality is morally wrong then we need to let them be entitled to their terrible views. But there is no reason for the state to bow down to their bleating. The worst thing about the gay marriage bill in the UK is that in a pathetic attempt to appease the vocal religious opposition the tories included a clause that stated that the Church of England would be legally FORBIDDEN to marry gay people. How about that?! They’re not even getting the option to join the 21^st century any more! 

Sadly it gets worse than that my pious friends, did you know that I can get married?! That’s right! I can stroll on past my local church, take a piss upon their shrubberies and then saunter into the registry office wearing my favourite antichrist t-shirt. A simple flick of my wrist with pen in hand confirms me as a married citizen; free to join the legions of holy ordained couples in tax break heaven. If you don’t think gay people should be married based on religious principles then I really think you should start taking on piss-taking heterosexual atheists like myself.

As far as I’m concerned we should treat religious concerns with exactly the same amount of respect as a group of individuals that assert that Zeus thinks that homosexuals are icky and therefore sub-hetero. I’m sure they would be sincere and that any change to the status quo would damage their fragile beliefs but we shouldn’t concede that their ‘God says no’ argument is sufficient.

“What about the terribly complicated legal ramifications?! FREE SPEECH DAVE! FREE SPEECH! MY GRANDFATHER FOUGHT FOR FREE SPEECH!”

I’ve heard it all, I’ve been told that freedom of speech is at threat because any gay marriage dissenters will be made to ‘disappear’ by the overzealous left and that gay people won’t be able to have a divorce because they don’t have sex.

Basically, in this United Kingdom we have a law that prohibits those that work in the public sector from saying negative things about the things that their society accepts. So your nurses can’t let their racism seep into their hospital and your teachers can’t let their religious bias seep into their classroom. Now, the idea that public sector equality duty (our ‘anti-free speech’ laws) is the fault of gay marriage is ridiculous! Generally, my opinion is that we should go into these issues with the assumption that everyone is at least born equal biologically, that there is no reason to bear prejudice against people of different races, genders, or sexualities. We can of course note the obvious differences, but cultures all over the world have overgeneralised to see these three groups as deficient in several ways. What of the Catholic adoption agencies that have been closed down because they refuse to place babies with homosexual couples? It is important to remember at this point that the consensus in the scientific world is that gay people make absolutely fine parents, it’s a farce in itself that they have to pass some kind of parenting test whilst the rest of us straight people need only have a drunken one night stand to prove we’re capable! Imagine the moderate Nazi adoption agency? Ever willing to give children to Aryans but never to Jews or black people. I think any new charity or agency should have to conform to the rules of the society they’re in otherwise become martyrs and risk closure, if our society says that gays are equally capable parents and should not be discriminated against then they should comply (especially if their pay masters ARE the society they live in). What of the poor teacher that would be condemned for refusing to teach that gay marriage is okay? All you need to do is substitute ‘gay marriage’ for ‘racial equality’ and it seems obvious, it is right that bigoted prejudice should be discouraged by our political infrastructure. You have the right to believe any crazy thing you want privately but if you want to teach sexuality inequality to kids, refuse to give babies to homosexuals, and want to refuse to perform abortions based on your sincerely held beliefs then you must accept that you are vulnerable to your employers. If you go into a job where you’re supposed to open certain services to the public then I don’t see it as the employer’s job to bend over backwards so that they don’t have to violate the beliefs of Bill the racist or Janet the homophobe. It’s slightly unfashionable to be on the side of the employer but in these types of situations I can’t help but think that it sucks to have an employee come up to you and say they won’t do the job they’re paid for because their god/beliefs told them they shouldn’t. But like I say, this is not actually an argument against gay marriage at all! More so the existing law of public sector equality duty.

“What about the terribly complicated legal ramifications?! YOU NEED A VAGINA AND A PENIS FOR SEX DAVE! YOU CAN’T JUST POKE WHATEVER YOUR SEXUAL ORGAN MAY BE INTO A COLD TAP AND CALL IT SEX!”

This is one of the most ridiculous points I’ve ever read in the gay marriage debate, but I will play along! First I must dismiss any notion that gay people have sex, should it be more appropriately named sodomy? Rather than the more current gay/anal sex? But what about when straight folk have it? Is it anal sex or sodomy then? I gather that since sodomy has no existential purpose (though this seems a terribly grandiose term) and no procreative result that the concept of consummation is meaningless. But hang on, does this mean that sex with a condom is meaningless? Can we even count that as sex anymore?! The mind boggles, but I will roll with it! So we have a problem in being unable to use non-consummation and adultery as grounds for divorce (as gay people don’t have sex). Firstly, the idea that consummation is more important to the idea of marriage than all the festivities and legal concessions that preceded seems crazy to me! Should celibate people be refused the right to get married? Or even people that don’t intend to have a child? Is this really what we think marriage is in 2013? Having checked a few marriage application forms out I can tell you now that there is no box to tick that promises you will consummate.

“What if same-sex friends want to marry to pick up some of the legal perks?”

Unfortunately, this problem is not specific to gay marriage and can also be abused by straight marriage; so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not gay marriage’s problem.

“But…but I’m not scared of gays!”

Gooooooooooooooooal! Well played my anti-equal-rights-for-gays friend! The chances are that you’re probably not literally afraid of homosexuals, which is great! Maybe you’re slightly apprehensive about them craving your limp penis/girly bits but they don’t scare you like a James Wan film. Homophobia is indeed a poorly chosen word as it implies fear when obviously there tends to be none in the situations that it is applied. But I also think it’s cheeky of opposition to things like the same-sex bill to moan that they’re not afraid of gays and therefore they’re not homophobes. They know that they’re not being accused of being afraid, it’s just pedantic. But yes, many of the opposition certainly are an as yet undefined word that means intolerant of gay people getting the same rights as straight people.

I find it increasingly upsetting that I live in a time where many forward thinking societies won’t jump the last hurdle in civil rights and change the name of a form, and won’t quite legally accept gay people as equal to straight people. It is amazing to me that in the 21st century I’ve got to convince people that civil rights are a good idea, even in Britain. But I persevere!

Did I miss anything? Please let me know! I’m sure there are still plenty of crazy angles we can approach the problem from. But for God’s sake let’s keep it good and Christian and avoid the back passage.

TTFN!