tommorris.org

Discussing software, the web, politics, sexuality and the unending supply of human stupidity.


lgbt


Bad news: Parliament voted down measures to make sex and relationship education required in British schools. Instead of comprehensive, rounded and LGBT-inclusive, British schools can continue to teach a minimal battery of reproductive biology combined with a tissue of religiously-inspired propaganda and call it education in order to satisfy the concerns of “faith communities”. In Britain not offending religious people is apparently a more important public policy outcome than teaching students that gay people are human, how to negotiate sexual consent and how to not get sexually transmitted diseases.


Video of a 1974 debate on same-sex marriage. This is some archive gold.


Please stop wishing hypothetical LGBT children on homophobes as "punishment"

I’m writing this because I’ve seen this shit far too often from people who ought to know better.

It would be really nice if “straight allies”, whether self-identifying or not, could stop with this nasty little trope of wishing gay children on homophobes. It has become a common enough joke: some self-righteous preacher or politician makes some cruel homophobic remark, or works to enact a piece of legislation that will disempower lesbian, gay, bi, trans or queer people in some way, and then a sassy commenter will joke about how it would be a hilarious bit of fate if one of said homophobe’s children to end up being L, G, B or T themselves. A gay son, a lesbian daughter: those would be be fitting punishment for such a ghastly person!

Yeah, hilarious.

Except it isn’t so hilarious when you actually think about it. If you asked the person making this joke whether they consider having a child who grows up to be LGBT to be worse than that child growing up to be heterosexual (and cisgender), they’d tell you that they value the two equally, even though their words could cause one to dispute this claim. Why is having a queer child such a punishment? Is their LGBTness some kind of moral stain that marks the child out?

No, no, no, they say, it’s not me who thinks it’s bad. But the homophobic person, they would think it is bad!

Perhaps what they are hoping is that the sudden plot development of the Rick Santorums or Maggie Gallaghers of the world finding out that one of their offspring is themselves LGBT is going to cause them to rethink their position, much as it did for Republican politicians like Rob Portman and Dick Cheney. Sure, that would be a nice result, but what seems to get forgotten is the kids themselves, the unconsenting means to the desired Damascene end.

The imagined gay son-of-a-homophobe imagined by irony-loving liberal commentators would be subject to an upbringing of unending terror for their entire childhood. (And, you know, kids being in an unsafe environment is something I think we can probably agree is bad.) Even the kids of lovely hippy liberals feel a whole lot of often unwarranted fear and shame about coming out, but if you grew up watching your father go on TV comparing gay people wanting to get married to advocacy of “man-on-dog” marriage? May as well make that closet door out of concrete.

The lives of gay children aren’t there to teach some moral lesson to the nasty homophobes of the world. Year after year of bullying, homophobia and fear is not a fair trade for some kind of “the universe is fucking with you” karmic justice for homophobes. And that’s presuming that it actually works: homophobes having gay kids won’t magically lead to some happy Oprah Winfrey redemption story where everyone comes out of it happy. That’s sappy daytime TV shit. Some of those homophobes aren’t going to feel shamed into not hating LGBT people because they happen to be related to one. They’ll just kick them out, disown them and treat them like shit, just as they do to all the other LGBT people they come across. There’s a reason why so many homeless teenagers are LGBT, especially in bastions of godliness like Utah.

But even if it did lead to some kind of conversion, that doesn’t justify the pain the kid will have gone through. Just consider the harm to the kid and weigh it up with the benefit of their parent not being homophobic any more: there’s a massive imbalanace of harm vs. good there, and the harm all goes to the hypothetical gay kid. All that fear and bullying and self-doubt (not to mention increased risk of self-harm and suicide) that the LGBT kid goes through by being born to parents ideologically committed to homophobia isn’t some kind of “trade” for the eventual reluctant acceptance by their parent. The hypothetical queer kid’s life story is—in this scenario—dictated by their reaction and resistance to the bigotry of their parents. Sorry, hypothetical queer kid, you don’t get a happy childhood, nor do you get your own life or ambitions, you have to exist to satisfy the desire for some poetic justice by a straight person with a rainbow flag avatar on Facebook.

The person invoking this nasty trope doesn’t care about the hypothetical queer child: they care about God, karma or Mother Nature or whoever using them as a way to get back at the homophobic baddie. The safety or best interests or wishes of the hypothetical queer child don’t matter, because said child is just an actor in a morality play. The fact that actual LGBT people would find the prospect of growing up as the gay child of some big-time homophobe to be utterly horrifying doesn’t matter, because their safety doesn’t matter. They are soldiers in the war, and if winning the war means losing some troops, well, you gotta break some eggs, right?

The gay-kid-as-comeuppance-for-homophobia trope is exceptionally sad because it casts the child into a drama not of their own making: their life doesn’t matter, their place in the grand historical psychodrama of whether or not their parent gets over their bullshit prejudices is what matters. For the whole history of representations of LGBT people, our existence has been less about defining our own stories, being the master of our own lives, telling our stories (albeit often through a queer lens), but has been about being the side plots, the amusing stereotypical fairy who does the straight protagonist’s hair and nails perfectly, the oddball who provides comic relief, the Village People cartoon rather than the complex and nuanced people that heterosexuals get to be in films and TV.

We’re either oversexed to the point of derangement or rendered in ascetic celibacy so as to not offend. We’re the people who get interrupted when the bumbling straight dude wanders into our bars where we gobble him up like a piranha, or the sassy queen able to dispatch flawless fashion advice to his rich straight girlfriends—we’re there to civilise straight people, whether by forcing them to confront their own prejudices or by fixing them up with an amazing manicure. We’re not there to actually be ourselves or to have struggles or romances or lives of our own, just to serve as a plot device in the service of the straight protagonist. Existing solely to serve as divine punishment for wrongdoing is an example of this.

Thanks to this morality tale trope, we get to serve a new and exciting role as clumsy moral example by being legally tortured by our parents for years in order to finally shame them them into reluctantly admitting that we are human beings. Yeah, that sounds like a life I’d actually want.

The hypothetical queer kids are not actual people in this story, they are a curse. When you use this trope, you kind of imply that we’re a curse too.


Boyfriend in one hand, gin and tonic in the other. 👬🌈 #pridelondon


Gay marriage: strengthening straight marriage?

One of the frequently heard refrains from the opponents of same-sex marriage is that it will weaken the institution of (straight) marriage. Opposite sex couples are going to look at marriage and conclude “bloody queers have destroyed it, count me out”.

This has always been a pretty absurd suggestion: why would whether gay and lesbian couples being able to get married change the attitudes of a straight couple seeking to get married?

Based on some informal surveys of friends, it might. But not in the way the opponents of same-sex marriage believe.

I have now had a number of conversations with friends who have said that they delayed getting married until same-sex marriage was legal. They didn’t feel comfortable getting married in an institution that was segregated and they felt it might be rather insulting to invite their LGBT friends to celebrate their marriage when they are not afforded the same access.

Removing the discrimination against gays and lesbians may actually help the institution of marriage: detoxifying it of its heterosexism and thus making it acceptable to those who are rightly concerned about the well-being and equality of their LGBT friends, families and colleagues.


This article is immensely sad: My boyfriend killed himself because his family couldn’t accept that he was gay.


Politico reckon the SCOTUS same-sex marriage case is a foregone conclusion. Interesting.


Your friendly reminder that the Pope is still an awful human being, and that if you were hoping he’d reform the Catholic church and finally make it LGBT friendly, you are a gullible fool taken in by PR hucksters (remember: the Pope has a PR guru, just like every other major league celebrity and politician).


People say homophobia is a thing of the past in the UK. People are wrong.


Pope Francis has endorsed a rather ghastly anti-gay campaign in Slovakia. His face now fills billboards asking people to vote to an amendment banning same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples and mandatory sex education.

Which is perfectly understandable: he heads a church that is institutionally anti-gay and he has repeatedly acted in opposition to gay rights. Despite all the many predictably craptastic things that Pope Francis has actually done, people will still continue to believe he is a breath of fresh air, a reformer, someone who was going to finally welcome the LGBT community into the church. The huge gap between the reality of the Pope’s actions and the wishful thinking of those who are enamoured with him is spectacular. Cognitive dissonance is a scarily powerful force.


The Guardian has an excellent collection of stories of homophobia. Just the normal, day-to-day harassment and discrimination that people face on the street, in work, on public transport and in housing. The scary thing is that every out gay man I know in London that I have asked has been able to give numerous stories of street harassment. (And I have my own set. Everyone does.) Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.


I think I may be in love with Panti Bliss for this TEDx talk. Panti says what every openly gay person is forced to think, every single day.

Key quotes I loved:

  • “We try to be normal and carefree, just like everybody else. But we’re not. We’re constantly scanning the pavement ahead, just in case. If we see a group of blokes coming towards us, maybe we decide silently to continue holding hands, defiantly. But now, our small intimate gesture between two people in love is no longer a small intimate gesture—it is a political act of defiance. And it has been ruined.”
  • Homophobia is the “background of our lives”.
  • “I’m fed up of putting up.”
  • “They are afraid of what the world will look like when it treats gay and lesbian and bisexual people with the same respect as everybody else. They are afraid that they won’t fit in this brave new world of equality.”

Professional moron and banana enthusiast Kirk Cameron has gone full Westboro:

God hates gay people. God hates fags, and you’re going to hell.

What it lacks in ‘love thy neighbour’ it makes up in honesty I guess. The whole “love the sinner hate the sin” thing has always been such disingenuous bollocks.


The best thing about the otherwise pretty horrible Humanum conference: the mainstream media are reporting what should have been fucking obvious—namely, that the Pope isn’t the radical they sold him to be. Told you so.


Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni calls on church leaders to support the government in its fight against homosexuality.

Further proof that until the scourge of religion is defeated, LGBT people shall never truly be free—and any freedom they do have can never be secure. And, yes, that’s the same Museveni that recently met and was blessed by the Pope.


Mass murderer Charles Manson is getting married. I’m sure the sanctity of marriage crowd will be up in arms about——oh, wait, it’s a heterosexual marriage, so that’s fine.


Guess who is coming along to an interfaith conference on the “complementarity of man and woman in marriage” organised by the Pope? Tony Perkins from the virulently anti-gay Family Research Council.

So much for the bullshit myth that Pope Francis really, really loves gay people. “Who am I to judge?” he said. Well, he doesn’t need to judge. He can outsource that to Perkins, who has said that the It Gets Better project—an anti-bullying project!—is a “concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle”, advocates ineffective gay-to-straight conversion therapy, compares loving same-sex relationships to drug addiction, blames paedophilia exclusively on gay people, and argues that man-on-horse marriage is the logical outcome of same-sex marriage. (No, really.)

The fact that Pope Francis will be making Tony Perkins welcome at his event will in no way prevent idiots from believing that the Pope is some kind of agent of drastic change for the Catholic Church.


Elton John seems to think that Pope Francis is Tinker Bell too. The Church was on the edge of saying that we had “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community”. Then they decided that we didn’t.1

Pope Francis is an amazing PR spin machine (in fact, the Vatican has external PR consultants), but his actions are so discordant with the progressive mood music. It is quite sad that Elton John can’t see through the spin and see that Francis doesn’t represent meaningful progressive change at all.

  1. Because fuck Michelangelo and his fucking Sistine Chapel—and fuck John Henry Newman too. Neither of those two men gave any “gifts” to the ungrateful Church.


Good on Tim Cook for coming out publicly.

People who have never had to come out or face homophobic bigotry and harassment will at this point be saying “why is this even necessary?” because they are too blithely unaware of history to know why it is necessary. For a whole lot of young gay people interested in technology and wanting to work in the tech industry (etc.), this is something that will help. I don’t just think this, I know this from direct experience.


A skeptical campaigner has been threatened by self-proclaimed psychic Sally Morgan’s husband. A volley of threats of murder, lawsuits and a nice big dose of homophobia too. That seems an appropriate response to someone handing out a leaflet.

On Sally Morgan’s Facebook, there’s fawning comments about how he was “only doing what a loving husband would do”. Shouting homophobic abuse and threatening to have some killed: that’s true love right there.