My Gay Manifesto:
1) I have no problem with the fact that some people
are made homosexual. It’s a fact of life which I happily accept.
2) I’ve known plenty of gay people in my life and
have always assessed our compatibility in the same general terms that I apply
to everybody else, not according to their sexual orientation.
3) I don’t believe that homosexuality should be illegal,
as it used to be.
4) I believe that gay people should be protected
against prejudice, abuse and victimisation. Intolerance is a more complex
matter, and that brings me to my basic point:
I have no time at all for the Gay Pride movement.
I believe it does more harm than good. I believe it tends to polarise opinion into
two factions: those liberal sheep who support it because supporting shibboleths
is what sheep do, and those conservative sheep to whom gay pride marches are a
rallying cry for the entrenchment of their negative sensibilities.
Activism is necessary to right fundamental wrongs.
Trade Unionism was necessary to advance the rights of workers. Women’s Suffrage
was necessary to advance the rights of women. Gay activism was necessary to get
the law changed. But I believe that Gay Pride is a step too far. It’s
overplaying the issue and holding homosexuality up as something essentially different. And to the minds of the
prejudiced, ‘different’ equates to dangerous, unwholesome, unacceptable. I don’t
believe that Gay Pride encourages the perception of homosexuals as being the same
as everybody else except for their sexual bias. On the contrary, I believe it
mocks them in the minds of the waverers and puts their cause into reverse gear.
The logical question has to be asked: why should a
gay person be proud of having been made homosexual, any more that I am proud of
having been made hetero? We are what we are, and to take the Gay Pride view
simply accentuates the difference and encourages the process of marginalisation.
4 comments:
I couldn't help but respond to this. Your comment smacks of; "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" Those of your readers who have watched the program, Seinfeld will identify.
The 'gay pride' movement is in direct response to decades of intolerance. Homosexuals were forced to feel they had to hide who they truly were because it endangered their very lives. This is still true today.
Gay Pride a celebration of how far gay people have come in being able to live an open and authentic life.
We'd like to say we are all the same, but of course there are many differences from one sentient being to another. It's a matter of having the same or equal basic rights such as life without intentional infliction of pain just because of any particular difference, or perceived superiority.
Gay Pride doesn't encourage marginalisation, but rather is a way for homosexuals to openly celebrate who they are, while telling the world; 'Here I am and I will not be intimidated, or put down because of who I am.'
It is the homophobes of the world who have forced homosexuals to be the sum of who they sleep with. Gay Pride is kick back to that myopic view.
It says we may have relationships with consenting people of the same sex, but we are so much more than that.
Sadly, the world is still terrified of homosexuality.
And on a totally different, but similar note, do you have a problem with all the celebrations of Irish pride on St.Patrick's day?
Hope you are well.
During my time working for Sam's charity, I encountered a number of gay people who also greatly disliked the Gay Pride movement. They said it embarrassed them and made them feel less inclined to admit their sexual bias. They felt it held homosexuality up as something to be mocked, that it helped to reinforce the popular stereotype, that it tended to make the homophobes more homophobic and the waverers more likely to come down on the anti side. It was my memory of those people that partly encouraged the post - as an antidote to the received liberal view which you quote so eloquently. The other reason was that i believe received views to be greatly in need of challenging, be they liberal or conservative.
I think it hardly fair to make comparisons with the Irish and St Patrick's Day, since sexual bias brooks a fundamental question which nationality and cultural tradition don't. Ironically, though, one of the blogs I follow contained a post back in March in which the writer (a young American woman from New York) argued that St Patrick's Day celebrations cast the Irish in a bad light and damage their reputation. Whether that's true or not is a matter of viewpoint, but I still think the comparison to be inappropriate.
As for Seinfeld, I've no idea who or what he or she is or was, but I sense a whiff of accusation that I'm homophobic. Maybe that's for others to decide, but I would suggest that anybody who both knows me well and understands the root of 'phobe' would probably disagree.
Take a chill pill. If I would have thought you a homophobe, I would have said so. I believe you and I have had this discussion before. I just think it an odd post. Every gay person has the right to define him/herself. The problem is when non-gay people do the defining.
I beg to differ on the Irish/Gay pride comparison. The "Other" no matter what 'group' is hailed from at one time or another was demonized and seen as evil and immoral. This is the very root of prejudice.
I love honest discourse with vois.
I never tried to 'define' gay people, Bree. What I'm saying is this:
How far does one go in declaring pride? Should I declare my pride in being English, or being hetero, or having blue/grey eyes, or preferring savoury to sweet? No. These are things that are just matters of common acceptance.
I've seen huge changes in the way homosexuals are perceived during my lifetime. A level of acceptance has been achieved that didn't seem possible when I was a young man. I believe that state to have been brought about largely by brave people simply coming out and quietly admitting their bias - mostly well known and influential people who led the way for the ordinary folks.
Once a movement develops and people start jumping up and down declaring their 'pride,' the quiet revolution comes under threat because it takes on a disingenuous air. It looks forced; it carries a whiff of 'methinks the gay people do protest too much.' It even lends itself to the stigma of liberal alter-establishment totalitarianism, and public perception swings back to seeing them as 'other.'
Post a Comment