ThunderDragon Blog

A school “hip-hop musical” commissioned by Stonewall has been staged across the country, aimed at telling school children that it is “OK to be gay”. As is simple common-sense.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. And this is a message that should be sent out by all and sundry to our children, so that they understand this and don’t grow up to become Daily Mail readers homophobic.

One quote from a parent shows just how out of touch they are:

When I was 11, I didn’t even know what ‘gay’ was.

Yeah, but I bet your kids do. Kids of 11-14 are obsessed by it, even though they don’t understand it. They have been indoctrinated with the use of the word “gay” as a synonym for “bad”. The meaning of the word has developed so very much in three generations - from it’s literal meaning of happy, to homosexual, to “bad”. But without drooping any of the previous meanings.

Plus, of course, there is the general attacking of homexuality as “different” or “subversive” and the media stereotyping of gay men as weak, feminine and limp-wristed and lesbians as macho and butch. Thus gay men are perceived by impressionable kids as non-masculine and, effectively, wimps. Hence why children use “gay” as an insult rather than as a mere designation of sexuality.

Objections to this appear to boil down to the lines of “it might make my child gay” or “my child shouldn’t be thinking about sexuality at his age”. Which of course is utter bollocks from start to finish.

Projects like this are simply the best, and only, way to remove the issue of sexuality from the classroom and playground bullying.

A Church of England clergyman has been ordered to remove comments about gay people from his blog, remarks described by his diocese as “highly offensive”.

The Rev Peter Mullen, who ministers in the City of London, said he had gay friends and the words were “satirical”.

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: “Sodomy can seriously damage your health”. (BBC)

Yes, tattoo the gays. Just like the Nazis*. What a forward-looking, modern church the C of E is!

What is almost as bad is his comments afterwards:

I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Oh yes, the old “some of my best friends are *insert minority group you just attacked*” claim. Followed by:

What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality.

What, pray, is that? Is wanting equality “militant preaching”?! No, it’s not. Even if it is, it certainly doesn’t warrant any sort of supposedly “satirical” [what definition of satire does he subscribe to?] call for tattooing their asses with the words “sodomy can seriously damage your health”.

I don’t particularly like religious preachers, but I don’t call for the the slogan “Relgion can seriously damage your thought processes” to be tattoed on their forehead. Because that would be disgusting and intolerant - I just choose to ignore them.

The Church of England should sack this homophobe.

* I know, it’s Godwin’s Law

Margot James, a Conservative PPC, believes that “gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative.” Laurie Penny at Liberal Conspiracy objects, claiming instead that “queer politics are inherently radical”. Which is falling into exactly the same trap, except from the other side.

Let’s start with a little quiz:

What’s the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Whether they want to sleep with a person of the oposite sex or same sex to them.

There are no other differences. Unless I’m missing something. I really thought that, by now, we had moved on from thinking that there is any difference between gay and straight other than their preferred partner’s gender.

Thus, gay people have no “duty” to vote Conservative or to be “radical”. Just to make their own decisions as to the parties [and policies] which they believe will best suit them and the country - precisely the same way as everyone else.

When it comes to politics, sexuality means nothing. What matters are your opinions. Whether you are straight or gay, you have precisely the same role to play and decisions to make. Anyone who proposes that someone should vote for someone or believe something purely due to their own sexuality really needs to go away and rethink a lot of things.

The Ministry of Defence is finally allowing members of the armed forces to march in the Gay Pride parade in their uniform. Good.

The only difference between homosecual and heterosexual people is the gender of their preferred partner in bed.

That gay soldiers and sailors can all march in their uniform and show that the military is not homophobic is an unqualified Good Thing. Homophobia must be stamped out both in the military and everywhere else.

I look forward to the day when events such as Gay Pride simply aren’t required, because no-one is treated any differently based on their sexuality.

That day cannot come soon enough.

To be honest, I doubt it since he appears to be happily married. However, neither would I care if he was.

But it would appear that at least one person did, since someone typed that search term into Google.

is william hague gay?

And ended up at this blog.

When I see referrals in my logs with search questions like that, I just have to wonder what the hell is going through the minds of certain people.

Especially considering a couple of the ones I spotted last year. And the fact that I keep seeing references to “nazi orgy” leading people to this post.

Say your job is to officiate over marriages and civil partnerships, but you are so blindly committed to what it says in the Bible that you refuse marry gay couples. What should you do?

a) Find another job, one that you can do, or

b) Sue for the “right” not to do your job.

This person chose option b.

Islington council in London has told Lillian Ladele she could lose her job unless she agrees to preside at the ceremonies. She claims “discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief”.

As they damn well should. But she feels that she should be given an exempton from doing her full job:

“I feel strongly about maintaining my Christian beliefs and conscience…

I can’t go against what it says in the Bible. I don’t understand why the council can’t use other people who have no problem with the ceremonies.”

That would be because it is your job to preside over marriages and civil partnerships. You are not working for a religious body, but a public, sectarian, organisation. Either you do your job, or you go and find another one. There is no two ways about this.

You are not being asked to do anything but preside over their civil ceremony. This is not a religious ceremony, but a state ceremony. It has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with individuals rights to formalise their relationship with someone they love - who just happens to be of the same gender.

It is very simple. If your job is to do something that your “conscience” - however fucked up it is - objects to you doing, then get another job.

A unique blog post title for this blog. And one which will almost certainly never be reproduced.

Pretty much the only two good laws that have been passed by Labour in the last decade are in the news today.

First of all, the news that 24-hour drinking will stay. 24-hour drinking is just a good thing. All the complaints about it are exactly the same that existed beforehand. 24-hour drinking has just meant fewer fights in city centres due to different places closing at different times, and less of a need to drink lots of alcohol quickly in order to get drunk before time is called. It is just a good thing.

Secondly, the creation of legally recognised civil partnerships for gay couples, allowing Tory frontbencher Alan Duncan to be betrothed. Congratulations to him and his partner! Hopefully he won’t be the last Conservative MP [or MP of any party] to take advantage of this opportunity to have their relationship legally recognised.

So Labour have passed two good laws. What a legacy for more than a decade of government!

Ok, that’s not quite true. Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas party, actually said:

Erm… so if earthquakes are the fault of the gays, what happened to the whole tectonic plates thing? Or did Shlomo Benizri just skip basic geography, and headed straight to the bigoted religious nut class?

And if his conclusion is indeed true, why are those countries who offer gay marriage/civil partnerships not experiencing earthquakes to a far greater extent than Israel who is merely recognising them? Or is that just too much like logic?

In other news, Iain Dale promises to avoid shaking his genitals in future. Something I think we can all be thankful for.

If you tell a joke about gay people, you could sent to prison for seven years under measures in the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through Parliament. The Bill, intended to stamp out homophobic behaviour, has been criticised by the comedian Rowan Atkinson, who points out that it has

Indeed it does, especially when the penalty is so high.

When it comes down to it, you can’t “stamp out” homophobia. It’s not something that can be forced out of people. It is best just to ridicule the idiots who feel that way for their narrow-mindedness and get on with our lives.

Also, being a homophobe is not illegal, and nor should it be. The expression of this and an incitement to hatred of gays is and should be - but that does not need this new law. Nor should any group - whether they be able to be defined by age, gender, race, religion, sexuality or anything else - should be “protected” like this. All it would result in is an ostracisation of that group since any remark that could possibly be interpreted in an “illegal” way could lead to excessive punishment, such as seven years in prison. It would cause an apartheid rather than prevent discrimination.

This sort of law are utterly unnecessary and, really, prevent full and complete social inclusion of any “minority” group rather than facilitate it.

Source: The Telegraph

So say gay rights group Stonewall, after JK Rowling opens Professor Dumbledore’s closet and outs him as gay.

You do just have the wonder whether Stonewall actually thought that sentence through. After all, the Harry Potter books in which Dumbledore features is fiction. That means it is not real. I just get the feeling that they pulled out a stock press release and just added the profession in, and then neglected to read it through.

In the same article, Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying

It is a children’s book, and one in which sexuality is hardly fully explored. The nearest any of the characters get to sex is a few kisses. I hardly think that the sort of “explicit” addressing of Dumbledore’s sexuality that Tatchell wanted would have added anything to the series or, indeed, been particularly appropriate. To do this would have added an entirely unnecessary dimension to the books.

I can’t see that it really makes any difference that Rowling has outed Dumbledore as gay. It doesn’t change the story at all, or make the slightest bit of difference to the context. So why all the fuss?

via John Moorcraft
Source: BBC