my.PinkNews.co.uk

On the much hyped Question Time debate, BNP spokesman Nick Griffin caused a storm – well, a mild squall, anyway, he’s not really worth a full on gale - by saying that he thinks gay men kissing is ‘creepy’. He hasn’t exactly divided the nation on this subject. There are plenty of people still who would say ‘Who’s Nick Griffin’. That’s political apathy for you! But there are some opinions going around and they seem to be split three ways.

First there are the basically ‘nice’, basically ‘decent’ people who, while not necessarily considering themselves homophobic, and certainly unlikely to vote for the BNP, nevertheless think “kind of”, “sort of”, “well, you know”, that it is a bit odd when they see men kiss each other, and broadly agree with him.



And there is what seems a much smaller camp of people who have no problem with gays kissing whatsoever, who think the act of kissing, of one Human being pressing lips against the lips of another Human being is a beautiful expression of warmth, affection, love, passion, devotion. This group seems to be drowned out at the moment by the other two groups.

Happy, smiling, open display of affection. This would be perfectly socially acceptable for a heterosexual couple.

But anyway, a couple of things struck me about the statement and the reaction. The first was that I disagree completely with his comment, and that he is utterly and completely wrong, and he would still be utterly and completely wrong if he wasn’t a bigot who nobody likes very much anyway.

The second was, actually, he is right. Not, of course, that gay men kissing is creepy, but that a lot of people think – like him – that it is creepy. And I can personally vouch for that. I’ve experienced that reaction a lot more than you might expect, seeing as I’m a woman!

Science fiction kissing! Captain Jack on Captain John!

 Anyone who knows me knows that my laptop goes wherever I go. I am a writer, and I write wherever the mood takes me. And if I stop writing for more than 60 seconds my screensaver kicks in. The screensaver is a slideshow of pictures of my favourite entertainer. For anyone who doesn’t know me, that would be the lovely John Barrowman. I’ve got pictures of him singing on stage, acting in Doctor Who and Torchwood, attending celebrity parties, all the sort of pictures you can find with a concerted Google image search - nothing especially shocking. But among the pictures there are quite a few that are of John and his civil partner, Scott. And of those pictures there some in which they are kissing. The screensaver programme randomises the pictures so you don’t know what’s going to come up next.


Now, I have noticed whenever the  screensaver kicks in, that people will sit watching the pictures change every eleven seconds. When one of the pictures of John and Scott kissing comes up I have noticed their reactions. They vary from a twitch of the face, to a drawing back of the whole body, to a full recoil or exclamations of disgust. These friends of mine, incidentally, range from little old Irish Catholic ladies who I know from volunteering on a Saturday in church to young adults, male and female, who I worked with in another volunteer job during the summer.

The full recoil tended to be from the little old Irish Catholic ladies who were brought up in places where that sort of thing just didn’t happen and couldn’t quite believe what they were seeing. They had been happy looking at pictures of a good looking man who they thought had a lovely singing voice and seemed to be rather nice on whatever daytime TV programme they had seen him on recently. When the pictures of John with Scott popped up they said things like ‘oh, they look like brothers’. But the pictures of the two of them kissing left them stunned and confused.

The exclamations of disgust tended to be from the young adult males between 17 and 25 who were perfectly ok with pictures of the star of an action television programme they’ve all watched until they were faced with him kissing another man. These young adults, incidentally, were sitting under one of those big red Stonewall posters with the ‘Some People Are Gay’ slogan on it, and open expressions of homophobia could get them chucked out of the centre. And it is true that they weren’t really being homophobic – as such. Some of them said they had nothing against gays – as such. But when they saw a picture of a gay kiss for eleven seconds their reaction was one of embarrassment, confusion, disgust.

Another straight man kissing a gay man – David Tennant snogs John Barrowman at the 2009 Comic-Con San Diego.

But we all see kissing going on all the time on TV. Not on the aforementioned porn, but in ordinary programmes. It’s on the soaps, it’s on Casualty, it’s on The Bill. It’s on Doctor Who!  TV is where most of us see the most kissing going on, unless we’re lucky enough to have a fair share of it from our significant others. And there isn’t as much of it on TV as some people make out. Even Torchwood only averages one snog for every three episodes. The soaps have had their moments. Coronation Street and Eastenders have had a couple of storylines and the kisses have been headline news. And that’s the problem. If gay kissing wasn’t so rare a sight, it wouldn’t be headline news. It would be just another soap storyline. And if gay kissing happened more often on TV, people might get used to it. They might start to find that latent homophobia falling away.

In short, they wouldn’t agree with Nick Griffin that gay men kissing is “a bit creepy”. They would start to join the camp that thinks people exchanging expressions of affection with each other openly and happily, regardless of gender, is a beautiful thing.

Because it is.

 

I was just reading a new article on Pink News about comedian and TV presenter Paul O’Grady possibly moving to ITV from Channel 4 due to issues about the budget for his show. I was not entirely surprised to see that the very first two words in this article were ‘openly gay.’

A link at the bottom of the page to an old article about Graham Norton possibly taking over O’Grady’s Channel 4 slot begins with the same two words ‘openly gay’.

A few days ago the same two words ‘openly gay’ opened the first paragraph of the report on the tragic death of singer Stephen Gately.

On the same day an article about Stephen Fry’s TV series Kingdom being axed began with the words ‘gay broadcaster’.

Two weeks ago, there was an article about John Barrowman that spawned all kinds of criticisms and comments. The headline of the article was ‘Gay Dr Who and Torchwood Star…” And in the links below was another article about John that opened with “Gay actor…”

At this point let me quote John Barrowman in a Times article marking the anniversary of the Stonewall riots which makes the same point.

“If there’s one thing that annoys me it’s the media that calls me “gay” as a prefix to everything….”

See, even he’s noticed.


Looking further back in the Pink pages I came across further examples of this lazy journalism. These three were one after the other.

“Gay comedian Matt Lucas….”
“Openly gay fashion designer Tom Ford….”
“Gay illusionist Derren Brown….”

And then Graham Norton and John Barrowman popped up again, both still openly gay. As if we didn’t know that. If you took a poll in any high street and asked people to name two gay celebrities chances are those two would be mentioned. Nomad tribes deep in the Sahara who don’t even have a word for gay know that John Barrowman and Graham Norton are gay. Ok, I exaggerate. But you get the point. They’re gay. We don’t need to be told they are every time their names are mentioned in the press.

And it’s the same for the women.

 “Lesbian rock icon Melissa Etheridge…”
“Bisexual singer Lady Gaga…”
“Bisexual actress Megan Fox….”

Has anyone ever seen an article that refers to “openly heterosexual actor Brad Pitt” or “completely straight singer, Beyonce” or “pathologically non-gay politician’s wife, Iris Robinson…”

Heterosexual people are not defined by their sexual preferences. Why are gay people?

Why, especially on a website specifically for the LGBT community, is it necessary to keep using phrases like ‘openly gay’ to describe the subjects of the article?

Even if the article is about the fact that the person is gay, such as the recent one about John Barrowman that we all had such fun with, ‘openly gay’ don’t need to be the first two words in the sentence. They don’t need to be in the title. The subject matter speaks for itself.

It is even less necessary when the article is nothing to do with the subject’s sexuality. Paul O’Grady is not moving to ITV because it is a more gay friendly channel. Graham Norton isn’t going to Channel 4 for that reason, either. Kingdom was axed because ITV has budget problems, not because Stephen Fry is gay. And Stephen Gately, bless his poor soul, didn’t die at the terribly young age of 33 because he was gay. The lazy journalism that pigeon-holes people so conveniently seemed all the more annoying in the articles that covered that tragedy.

If gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals are to have a truly equal place in society with everyone who doesn’t fit into one of those categories, then we all have to stop using easy labels, and it ought to start with the people who write the news, especially those who write the Pink News.

Check it out peeps. My first blog!

Well if I'm going to rant, it might as well be to a crowd that don't actually like me in the first place. Mind you, I think this particular case in point might ring a nerve or strike a bell.

Less than a month ago, PN reported "Indonesian province introduces severe penalties for homosexuality" - I move that had even the staunchest homophobes maybe wondering if some people just take things a bit too far. "OK, he shags men. Stone the dirty sod." Seems a bit extreme even for the BNP.

Well, those that know me will know I am about as unspiritual a person as you are ever likely to find. However, I think there are good lessons to be learned in the Bible, and probably other religious tomes as well, but I really can't be arsed to read. Unfortunately, all these honest and decent messages get confused and mangled amongst all the other theological mumbo-jumbo and personal opinions of ficticious dieties. Shame really.

Anyway, as Ronnie Corbett would say, "I digress..."
My point is, less than a month after these heathen morons deemed being gay worthy of being pelted with rocks until the person is reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement, they are now asking for help: Indonesia awaits world quake aid

I'm not sure which religion expouses Karma, (I think it's Hindu), but I think they might know something us athiests don't, because next time some tin-rattling do-gooder comes up to you in the street asking for a donation towards the Indonesian earthquake, why not hand them a nice bit of granite, or maybe some Portland stone?

The man said of the baby: “He has stolen my heart.” But Elton John will not be taking 14 month old Lev home; instead, the baby will remain in a Ukrainian orphanage for children affected by HIV/Aids. Without parents, without aunties and uncles, or his own bedroom in a loving family home.

Many believe that what Elton has sought to do, and what Madonna and Angelina Jolie have both done; taking children from disadvantaged countries to lives of untold luxury, is wrong. These mega-millionaires, billionaires even, should instead invest their time and money improving the lot of as many children in these poor countries as they can; by building new and better orphanages, providing access to medical care, clean water and healthy food.

Perhaps singling one child out for a life of opportunity whilst leaving others in a state of despair is utterly outrageous, perhaps it is a noble and loving act of giving love and a family to someone who would otherwise have none.

But these are not the things the Ukrainian Government considered when it rejected Elton Johns’ proposed adoption of little Lev. It is because, as Minister Yuriy Pavlenko has said, the mega star is too old and not married. The age gap is certainly wide. Elton is 62, much more than the 45 years the Ukrainian Government says is the maximum age difference for adoptive parents. However his civil partner, David Furnish, at 46 would be within the age limit, and it could be argued in any court or to an adoption official that the wealth and opportunity that Elton John and his partner could offer an adopted child would far outweigh the possibly reduced length of time that Elton John would have with the child due to his age.

The fact that the Ukrainian Government has rejected Elton John because he is not married is worrying, but true. However it can hardly be the fault of Ukraine, a generally conservative Eastern European nation heading into what will be a turbulent election period, to refuse to recognise a civil partnership between a gay couple as the same as marriage. Yes it shows the Ukrainian Government has having an unenlightened view on gay rights, but no one could reasonably expect anything else from this badly divided nation struggling to pull free of its Communist past and menacing Russian neighbour.

This instead exposes a fundamental flaw in the very concept of the British civil partnership scheme. Whenever UK citizens ask their Governments about the full right to marry their same sex partner, the responses that have been received from both Scottish and UK Governments, and in fact from Stonewall UK has been thus: ‘civil partnerships are fine, you get practically the same rights as married couples, you can even get dressed up and have a ceremony down at registry office, so stop bothering us and don’t push your luck.’

Although many people who believe in same sex marriage view this argument as deeply offensive and plain discrimination, it isn’t technically wrong. We DO get virtually the same rights as married couples, which is good, but without a doubt we need to go further and have full marriage equality across the UK. This aside, we then encounter the problem of international recognition of UK same sex couples. Whereas a married same sex couple can move from Canada to Belgium to Spain to Iowa and still be married, the minute they step onto British shores they are relegated to civil partnership status. Therefore when a British ‘civilly partnered’ (what is the actual verb?) couple moves to a jurisdiction that has taken the bold step to allow same sex marriage, it leaves the British couple in a legal limbo, it may even force them to have ANOTHER ceremony to ensure they get the rights they are entitled to as a couple.

The fact is that civil partnership is not a marriage, the British Government never wanted it to be classed as marriage, but our culture has somewhat embraced this as our own British style of same sex marriage, without the protests and court cases, and of course without the name or ancient traditions. So when Elton and David had their civil partnership ceremony, the media celebrated this as a ‘marriage’. Sometimes with inverted commas and a hint of tongue in cheek; other times genuinely inferring that they considered the partnership to as good as a wedding and refered to it as such. This widespread embracing of civil partnerships by society as ‘gay marriage’ has perhaps contributed to the apathetic feeling to real same sex marriage in the UK.

But the case of Elton John proves that for all the similarities, it allows all those who have well entrenched disdain for gay partnerships and the LGBT community to easily sneer at these ‘pretend weddings’ and ‘so called marriages’, and continue to view and treat same sex couples and LGBT people as less then equals, as different from ‘normal’ society and therefore deny them the right to family, security and full citizenship.

The reason same sex marriage is so contentious and civil partnerships, civil unions and domestic partnerships are by comparison not is partly because same sex marriage forces those with less than inclusive views to confront their prejudices and stereotypes. When they have to consider these people they dislike as equals, it puts them on the defensive. In the same way the male elite opposed votes for women, segregationists fought against sharing schools with African-Americans, and racists today claim President Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life; to accept that someone has the same rights as you have, to vote, go to school or become President, is to invariably accept them as the same as you.

Had Elton and David been legally allowed a real marriage, whether they would have wanted it or not, would perhaps not have let them give 14 month old Lev a new life, but it would have forced Ukrainian Government officials to consider the fact Britain believes two husbands can do just as good a job raising a child as can a husband and wife. You don’t change people’s minds by playing to their preconceived beliefs, you do it by forcing them to confront the prejudices they hold. That is why same sex marriage is so important, not just as a matter of equality, but as a way of proving to those who hide behind stereotypes that two wives or two husbands can do just as good a job as loving each other, raising children and contributing to society as anyone else.

                                             
                                              
                                               FRAR
My hart gos out to moTyli’a 'NaNa Boo' Macks mother  Beverlyn

And to all the parents of transsexuals that have been KILLED.

WHY,,,,,, WHY have we been  shot, stabbed, bludgeon, bunt ,drowned,  beaten to death with baseball bats or anything these  men can lay there hands on..

Going back to the man,,, issue  ,,,,well not even men these,,,, do not even deserve to be called men ,,, they are just ,,,,, they have no category, and they should not have one they are just,,, evil….

What have we ever done to them, to deserve this much hatred?  Nothing that is what we have done.

We live our life’s,, well we try to live them,

We life in fear,

Fear that we will be picked in the street and called vile names, like pervert nonce freaks,, we are not

Fear that we will be called Mr. or sir, laughed at in shops when we go shopping

Or just hold the line while I look at your account, and just before you are put on hold you hear them laughing

Fear when walking down a road and a group of teenagers start calling you vile names

Spiting at you, throwing things at you,

Fear when we are in our own homes and our houses get stoned or what ever they can throw  at your windows , putting things through a letter box  like petrol and a match(I do not have a letter box for this reason )   burning down your shed in the garden (I have had this done 2 times)

Fear that when you are out in your car and some yobs smash it up,(  I was still in my car when this happened .)

Fear that when you answer your door that some yobs are there to mock you and throw stuff at you,  (I now have a doorbell camera so I can see who is at my door be for I open it )

Fear that when yobs are outside your house throwing bricks at it and saying that they will brake in to my house rape me and then burn the house down with me in it. (I have had this said to me) 

Fear when Iam walking down the street and I hear footsteps behind me.

I live in fear.

Some people ask WHY live this way, why not go back to being a man

When will that  lot get it there  heads WE ARE NOT MEN

What man would do this the themselves?????? None

When I have had to call the police out a few times,

And when the local beat bobby calls to get a statement, and I tell him what happened, he asks about my feelings about the whole thing. The first couple times he asked me how I felt about the incidents I told him that I was hurt in side.

The time he came out when they were shouting  that they were going to rape me and burn me, he asked me how did it make me feel, I broke down and cried saying that I was scared, freighted, some times I would stay in and not go out .

 Paranoid, I am for ever checking that my doors and windows  are locked and the keys are not in the doors, sleeping on the sofa and with every little noise I am up checking, if I am going  out my front door and I hear voices in the street like kids I go back in to my house and wait till they are gone. This is no way to live. How do I feel      sick to my stomach, that in this day age we hurt people because they are different? 

  

When I walk out of my house to go anywhere, even  up to my corner shop I have a pepper spray in my hand, when I shop in town and iam walking round the shops I have my pepper spray in my hands.

And if ( touch wood I hope it never happens) I was attacked and I used  my pepper spray, it would be me in the dock and not the yobs that kicked shit out of me or if I was killed I would still be one who was in the wrong 

  WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR WHEN WILL ALL THIS HATRED STOP 

 

 

 rememberourdead.com

 

Say NO to Manchester City Council's ridiculous proposal to build a safety fence along Canal Street ! Its ugly, will not blend in with the historic wall and is SO expensive !

THIS MUST BE STOPPED ! JOIN UP to our Facebook Group and E-mail your councillor/MP/MEP NOW ?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110061363114&ref=nf

Roberta

If homosexuals go to Rome, Rome goes crazy. Everything is ready for the Gay Pride in Rome. The traditional LGBT procession in the Holy City and Italian Capitol is in a few days. But if you have a look at what is going on in the event organization you realize that only the time is set.
The 13th of June will be the day, but the place remains a big problem. Controversy, “polemica “in Italian comes from the Greek for war, seems to be the key word.
Where is the procession going to go? Where is it going to start from? Nobody knows but everybody demands something. From one side we have the cultural LGBT organization Mario Mieli that would like to end the procession in San Giovanni square, but it is not possible. “A matter of protocol” according to the mayor Giovanni Alemanno, “ a question of freedom” for the LGBT associations. [more]

Am I  the only person who heard Jonothon Ross's radio show yesterday (9/5/09) and found it really really offensive and homophobic?

Ross (the BBC havent even bothered to edit the offensive remarks out, so you can hear the comments for yourself on  on BBC iplayer at about 1 hour 44 minutes into the show just after a Kylie song ) made some remarks  implying that if little boys wanted a particular toy (something they were giving away in a competition) they were going to grow up gay, and that if your son was going to do this, you better get his
'name down for adoption now' before he grows up and brings his [laugh/ joke] "partner home".

How can these people earn such huge sums of public money to come out with this discriminatory rubbish. The BBC is a public body - for which we have to pay,  they are paid to serve their 'diverse' audience  So how do they get away with this kind of casual homophobia.  It might not be as blatant of Chris Moyles,  but it is just as inappropriate and dnagerous.   If you too find this offensive write to Ofcom and /or the bbc and complain. Dont let the bbc get away with this..........

Stephen Fry, speaking from California, said “If people want to reserve marriage for a man-woman thing then fine, call it something else."

He continued: "A bonding, a uniting, a legal yoking - that's fine. Yoking is a lovely word. Yoked together…"

Well Mr. Fry you may be happy with being yoked, but we deserve the right to have what everyone else can have. Not because we want something different or special, or because we want to shake things up or start rewriting dictionaries, but because it is a civil right.

If we pay the same taxes, we deserve the same rights.

Mr. Fry, its not that you’re saying separate but equal is fine, you are saying separate and unequal is ok with you. Perhaps you don’t need the financial benefits that come with being able to marry your partner, but don’t then deny that to the rest of us.

It’s incredibly depressing to see what should be role models for young LGBT people, people like yourself Mr. Fry, who have immeasurable talent and wit and sophistication, carelessly dismissing something that so many are working so hard for. It really doesn’t help.

It further damages young LGBT people, people who get tormented at school for their sexuality by bullies who think homophobic language and taunting is acceptable because they hear Chris Moyle doing it on Radio 1, but to then see you on Chris Moyles’ Quiz Night! It makes young LGBT people who get called “gay” think that they are just making a fuss out of nothing because when they see you and other celebrities go on his show, it puts out the message that these taunts are nothing to complain about.

The fact that you and your partner can walk down the street together without the threat of a lynching, that you can host TV shows and that you and your partner can see each other in hospital if one of you should take ill, is the product of many working long and hard, often at huge personal cost. Its because of those who have fought for civil rights and against homophobia for decades.

With so few out gay and lesbians in the media, and even fewer with anything matching your talent, Mr. Fry, you are looked to as a role model, whether you want to be or not. But you are not helping by dismissing the fight for gay and lesbian civil rights and dallying around with homophobic bullies.

LGBT Network have been calling for this reviw of the blanket ban on gay and bi men giving blood since we raised it at Scottish Parliament last year. We presented an array of evidence from around the world that showed it is not protecting the saftey of blood by having a blanket ban on gay and bi men and allowing all straight people to donate no matter who they had sex with and when.

Our evidence we presented to parliament is available here http://www.lgbtnetwork.eu/?page_id=1024  and you can see for yourself how a change in the criteria is best to keep blood products safe.

Unlike Stonewall and others, this ban cannot just be seen as discrimination. No one has a right to be a blood donor, but those who are allowed to donate blood have a responsibility to practice safe sex. We know many many gay and bi men do, and many, many straight men do not.

Therefore to make blood as safe as possible, the donor eligibility should be based on factors such as when was the last time a person had unprotected sex or sex with a new partner and when did the person last have an HIV test. An HIV negative man who is having safe sex with another man is prevented from donating, yet a straight man who had unprotected sex with a woman he KNEW to be HIV + can donate after a year.

This is part of a larger need for us to look again at HIV. As we showed in our evidence to parliament, the majority of new infections are from heterosexual people. HIV is something we all must think about, we all must protect ourselves and we all must get tested, regularly.

Reviewing the donor eligibility criteria for blood donations is an important first step in creating a new attitude to HIV that is based on facts not fear, and this review is a good move towards that.