Anti Gay Marriage? Meh.

In response to Richard Waghorne’s piece on Gay Marriage : ************************************************************************************** Leaving his incoherent ramble on gay marriage to one side for a second, it mostly offends me when Waghorne writes “actual homophobia already has a scarcely-threatening, almost antique quality to it” - this is simply not true. Thousands of young gay people are subjected to bullying in British schools everyday. As I type this sentence right now a student will be crying alone in a corner somewhere on their lunch break*. Homophobic killings still happen in Britain, and as for the rest of the world – there are entire nations darkened by heavily institutionalized homophobia, to pluck out one example from dozens - Iraq - where gay men are sometimes imprisoned, sexually abused by prison staff, and tortured to death such as having their anuses super glued so that they die painfully of their own digestive malfunction. We don't necessarily have a right to impose our culture on other cultures, but it is admirable that Britain sets an example of tolerance and love. **************************************************************************** Waghorne undermines his piece on gay marriage when he writes that civil partnerships “provide gay couples with nearly all necessary legal provisions”. Nearly all? What about equality? Gay people deserve to be treated the same as anybody else. We don't want tiaras and fancy titles, we don't want to better anyone, we just want the same, and it is so saddening to see a gay writer working against this. As Peter Tatchell has argued for a long time, denying gay people marriage is just another way of classifying them as second-class citizens who should be rejected by the family unit, ostracised from mainstream society, as if they don't belong in the world into which they were born, in which they live, and to which they contribute. If Richard Waghorne doesn't want to marry, and if no man wants to marry Richard Waghorne then that is fine, but why should he write a piece condemning something that he claims to have no interest in doing, and yet a lot of gay people do want to do and deserve? He has written this piece because he fancies himself as controversial, and his experience of reality is clearly somewhat skewed. ************************************************************************************** I am not attacking him because he is “anti-gay” as he thinks the "predictable" and cliche reaction to his piece will be. No, I’m highlighting his article because it reads like the work of a heartless careerist, and a boring one at that. His long rambling introduction of "I, I, I" and "actually gay people should X, Y, Z" just demonstrates the distance between the empty old-fashioned arguments and the heart of today's gay community. *********************************************************************************** It annoys me that he suggests gay partnerships don’t lead towards raising children. He is failing to see the future landscape of Britain here, already gay teenagers are growing up with the understanding that they could quite feasibly raise a family, and indeed there are plenty of gay parents out there right now. Just as gay people can be brilliant teachers, they can be brilliant parents, and if marriage is the springboard for succesful child raising, as Waghorne believes, then gay people have a right to give themselves that security and bond. ************************************************************************************* As for marriage being the perfect template for couples to raise children, I disagree, and we all know this isn’t always true either. Many of my friends were damaged by their parents’ marriages, does Richard Waghorne not know of at least one marriage that had a detrimental effect on a family? The idea that marriage is synonymous with monogamy and fidelity is a myth. Lots of people marry for status, money, security, or out of parental and social pressure and societal expectation, the same reasons why many have children. Whilst my parents were never married (they met at a party at university and had me – they shared parenting responsibilities) we are all perfectly happy as an archipelago-style family and are “successful” without the aid of church bells and a cake. I personally probably won't have a gay wedding, unless I meet a Wimbledon finalist and Marc Jacobs brings out a line of kilts. But I respect those gay people who do want to marry in private, and celebrate with their family and friends, and in the eyes of their all-loving all-accepting God if they're religious. ************************************************************************************* I'm sure there are reasons to doubt the introduction of gay marriae, and issues that must be ironed-out, and hopefully there is a writer somewhere who could convey these arguments more clearly and intelligently than Waghorne. If anything surely the major argument against gay marriage is that is affiliates the modern gay community with an old-school ecclesiastical gay community that is corrupt. Because to believe that the church doesn't have a whopping great twisted homosexual legacy is simply to bury our heads in the choir gowns rack. Marriage might also be (with emphasis on might) an example of government trying to “straighten out” the gay community, take away the bliss of an alternative counter-culture lifestyle, and to subject them to capitalist obedience. Arguments and concepts that when contemplated are complex, confusing and no doubt too chewy for old Weddingless Wordpress Waghorne here. ************************************************************************************ I’m not sure if I will marry myself, but I certainly won’t waste my time writing articles that offend and hurt those people who do want to marry. And if I do ever get married to my Wimbledon tennis finalist then I am certain a lot of straight couples and their prosperous, hearty, healthy heterosexual children will be in attendance. **************************************************************************************************************************************************************** *To borrow a Comic Relief writing style for one moment!

For a more mature rebuttal against Richard Waghorne's attention-grabbing piece check out Conor Pendergrast's piece 'Dear Richard'

2 comments:

  1. If he thinks homophobia is 'scarcely threatening,' then I suggest Mr. Waghorne go to Uganda as an openly gay man. I imagine that he would quickly realise that homphobia is alive, well and extremely threatening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SuperPayMe is the number 1 work from home site.

    ReplyDelete