"The day I decided to stop being gay"

[financeguy]

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit. Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature. Shooting for the net without the chore of running with the ball. It’s just not for me.

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

The day I decided to stop being gay - Times Online

Let the flames commence......

 

[kafrun]

Gays have children these days, of course they do, and not always to accessorise an outfit

First of all, what a douchebag stereotype to make

Second, heterosexual parents are certainly not guilty of having children for selfish purposes - to accessorise their lifestyle/fix their relationships/fill a void, etc.... Right?

Some gay couples adopt; others follow twisting paths to biological parenthood, often quite expensively, with the involvement of test tubes and cash changing hands. It is, really, a sort of snook to the system of nature.

Again, it's not as though many, many heterosexual couples go this same route........... right?

Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

All heterosexual marriages are fine examples of morality and it's certainly not like any homosexual unions couple provide better examples of monogamy and morality.. blah blah blah, etc.

 

[Dalton]

Let the flames commence......

Wow, you realize that the gays aren't actually flamers, don't you?

 

[melon]

These comments say it better than I:

The Author of this article is clearly bisexual and not gay. He even admits that he was attracted to the opposite sex.

Pretending that you gay when you are a bisexual is both misleading and false.

The article name should be "The day I confessed that I am Bisexual while pretending that i am gay"

This article is definately dangerous because it will cause parents of gay youths to think that being gay is a choise and reject their children for not "wanting" to change.

You should have explored your bi sexuality a long time ago and decided which sex you liked best. There is no need to hate gays, straights or yourself. I hope you find love and soon.

Why the media loves to indulge the self-loathing is beyond me.

 

[Zoomerang96]

this was a prominent story in the times... was rather surprised to see it displayed where it was.

needless to say, the guardian wouldn't have gone about this in the same way. ha

 

[Earl-Of-IMDb]

 

[DrTeeth]

Do we really need a thread every time a bisexual picks a side, or when a gay person gets back into the closet?

 

[BVS]

Do we really need a thread every time a bisexual picks a side, or when a gay person gets back into the closet?

Yeah... I don't really get the point.

 

[deep]

let nothing touch my lips, but his name in praise!

The day I decided to stop being gay

Prayer Warriors everywhere are rejoicing.

Fall on your knees.

 

[financeguy]

Do we really need a thread every time a bisexual picks a side, or when a gay person gets back into the closet?

Sorry for boring you. If the topic is not of interest, why not create a thread yourself?

 

[Irvine511]

the author can fuck whomever he chooses, but the gay bashing is really tasteless and makes me feel nothing but contempt for this poor little man.

 

[financeguy]

His views on gay marriages are controversial in today's society (and bear in mind, we are talking about a UK newspaper here, not a US one). I fail to see, however, that it constitutes gay bashing or even self-hatred. Sorry, but I just find that approach judgemental and ultimately a double standard.

 

[melon]

His views on gay marriages are controversial in today's society (and bear in mind, we are talking about a UK newspaper here, not a US one). I fail to see, however, that it constitutes gay bashing or even self-hatred. Sorry, but I just find that approach judgemental and ultimately a double standard.

The issue is not with his decision to start dating women; if he wants to be a "late-in-life bisexual," I see it as being no different than Meredith Baxter's realization that she's a "late-in-life lesbian." Sometimes, the road to self discovery is a long and winding road.

The issue is that he's taken upon himself to paint homosexuality with a broadly offensive brush, which is quite clearly based on self-hatred.

Some will dismiss it as heresy. I have long argued that homosexuality is natural but abnormal, to a torrent of hostility from gay friends who refuse to acknowledge that what you are and what stake you hold in society are not the same.

Loving your own sex occurs in nature, without artificial triggers. But it is still not average behaviour. Homosexuality is an aberration; a natural aberration. Gays are a minority and minorities, though sometimes vocal, do not hold sway.

A 12th-century chronicler, quoted by the historian Christopher Hibbert in his History of England, wrote of the homosexual king William Rufus: “All things that are loathsome to God and to earnest men were customary in this land in his time.” In modern times, we have become accustomed to abnormality again.

Point #1, if taken alone, I'm willing to set aside as a game of semiotics.

Point #2 is generally offensive to minorities, in general, as if, because they "do not hold sway" are irrelevant. Sure, tell that to racial minorities who will likely always be a minority in the West, but won't be given opportunity to wake up and become a "late-in-life white person."

And Point #3 is the dead ringer for self-loathing by citing a religious-based quotation making reference to homosexuality as "loathsome to God" and making yet another mention of "abnormality"--thus connection his apparent preoccupation with normality and aberration in his previous points.

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

And is it not bad enough that not only does he discover his bisexuality, but then has to do it by painting broadly offensive strokes about those who are gay?

Really, who the fuck is Patrick Muirhead, and why should I care about what he says over what decades of medical and psychiatric research says that show that gay families can be as happy and productive as their heterosexual counterparts? He may be of the generation that thinks of homosexuality as merely "fucking in a rest area bathroom," but he certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us.

My bets are that he's now affiliated with an "ex-gay" organization, because too much of the language he chose to use is right from their playbook.

 

[INDY500]

Soooo, speaking as a homophobe, am I supposed to hate this guy or not?

 

[melon]

Soooo, speaking as a homophobe, am I supposed to hate this guy or not?

As a homophobe, feel free to make love to him.

 

[financeguy]

Point #1, if taken alone, I'm willing to set aside as a game of semiotics.

Point #2 is generally offensive to minorities, in general, as if, because they "do not hold sway" are irrelevant. Sure, tell that to racial minorities who will likely always be a minority in the West, but won't be given opportunity to wake up and become a "late-in-life white person."

And Point #3 is the dead ringer for self-loathing by citing a religious-based quotation making reference to homosexuality as "loathsome to God" and making yet another mention of "abnormality"--thus connection his apparent preoccupation with normality and aberration in his previous points.

And is it not bad enough that not only does he discover his bisexuality, but then has to do it by painting broadly offensive strokes about those who are gay?

Really, who the fuck is Patrick Muirhead, and why should I care about what he says over what decades of medical and psychiatric research says that show that gay families can be as happy and productive as their heterosexual counterparts? He may be of the generation that thinks of homosexuality as merely "fucking in a rest area batoo much of the language he chose to use is right from their playbook.

Some of it is provocative stuff for sure, but he is from the background and milieu of a particular part of gay London, and he wouldn't be the first to criticise the social standards of this set and I still don't truly see how it makes him a self hater. Would a true self-hater write an article in a newspaper talking of their numerous gay encounters without apology or remorse?

It's interesting to note in passing that - and granted, this is a bit of a generalisation - that European gay rights organisations seem, at least to me:

(1) in general, to adopt a less confrontational approach than their US counterparts
(2) in general, thus far at least, to have been more successful in actually achieving the rights they are looking for.

And is it not bad enough that not only does he discover his bisexuality

Hmmm.

 

[anitram]

It's interesting to note in passing that - and granted, this is a bit of a generalisation - that European gay rights organisations seem, at least to me:

(1) in general, to adopt a less confrontational approach than their US counterparts
(2) in general, thus far at least, to have been more successful in actually achieving the rights they are looking for.

I'm not sure whether your generalization is accurate as I haven't spent appreciable time in Europe in recent years. But let's say that for the sake of argument it is. You also then have to acknowledge that the anti-gay equality rights groups in the US are far more confrontational and far more politically connected. Ultimately every individual and every group is a product of its society. And the gays and lesbians in western Europe simply don't live in Alaska or Alabama. Much the same way as you'd see a different picture if you looked at the former Soviet bloc countries and examined gay rights there (hint: they're not exactly liberal).

 

[melon]

Some of it is provocative stuff for sure, but he is from the background and milieu of a particular part of gay London, and he wouldn't be the first to criticise the social standards of this set and I still don't truly see how it makes him a self hater. Would a true self-hater write an article in a newspaper talking of their numerous gay encounters without apology or remorse?

If he is looking to further an agenda, why would we put it past him?

It's interesting to note in passing that - and granted, this is a bit of a generalisation - that European gay rights organisations seem, at least to me:

(1) in general, to adopt a less confrontational approach than their US counterparts
(2) in general, thus far at least, to have been more successful in actually achieving the rights they are looking for.

I read a different observation--right or wrong--that chalked up Europe's acceptance of homosexuals to the realization that this minority was "better" than the Muslim minorities that they detest more. Hence, not only were homosexuals "more like us," they also have the side benefit of irritating observant Muslims.

I make that note only to say that correlation does not imply causation. It's quite possible that they could be more confrontational and equally successful. On the other hand, who needs to be confrontational when David Cameron has basically bent over backward to be gay friendly, in contrast to the GOP leadership, which has exploited homophobia to win votes instead? If our political leaders were more reasonable--not to mention if U.S. politics were less combattative on all fronts--then there would certainly be less need for confrontation.

 

[melon]

Hmmm.

This:

Does this mean that I no longer like men? No, of course not, and I won’t pretend. But in the streets and avenues of this country there must be many husbands whose interests are divided but whose choices are determined not by sexuality but emotionality.

In fact, I'd almost say that the latter line about "emotionality" makes me think that maybe my line about "bisexuality" was premature; that he's still gay and just doesn't think it possible to have a "normal" relationship with someone of the same-sex. That would make it even more fucked up.

 

[Irvine511]

His views on gay marriages are controversial in today's society (and bear in mind, we are talking about a UK newspaper here, not a US one). I fail to see, however, that it constitutes gay bashing or even self-hatred. Sorry, but I just find that approach judgemental and ultimately a double standard.

we have, firstly, the tired imagery of shrieking nancy-pants party boys:

not always to accessorise an outfit.

At these tidings, my sceptical buddies will splutter, “You what?! Miss Patsy, trouser-chaser extraordinaire, has decided she’s now dancing at the other end of the ballroom? Pur-leeeeeeeze!”

But there is no pink meteor shower for this announcement; no glittered cabaret or niche community willing to clutch me to its bosom and claim me as a sister.

rue, I never liked football or fighting and I do make a beautifully light Victoria sponge when the need arises. But I shamble like a bloke, I burp and fart without shame and I’ve never really got Barbra Streisand.

and then there's the straight up self-loathing bashing:

Civil partnerships really are little more than theatrical shams involving men making a point in matching wedding cravats, of embarrassed grandparents and monstrously camp multi-tier cakes.

and, thus, the author comes off just like the bitter old queen he claims to despise, and who wants to go home with the working class guy with the great hands from the barbershop.

in many ways, this article is a good case-in-point of the damage of a society that teaches gay people that they are ridiculous and worthless, that they have nothing to offer society and we'd all be better off without them. this is the message of the "traditional marriage" crowd, the people who have never expressed a modicum of concern towards the actual gay people in their midst (like the anti-abortion folks who are far more concerned with sluts keeping their legs shut than with the actual fetus itself).

it all comes across as rather desperate.

but i don't know the guy. so who am i to judge as harshly as he does?

 

[Irvine511]

he's still gay and just doesn't think it possible to have a "normal" relationship with someone of the same-sex.

it's a bingo.

perhaps an examination of his own lifestyle, rather than "the lifestyle," might lead him to a happier place.

 

[financeguy]

we have, firstly, the tired imagery of shrieking nancy-pants party boys:

Quote:
not always to accessorise an outfit.

Quote:
At these tidings, my sceptical buddies will splutter, “You what?! Miss Patsy, trouser-chaser extraordinaire, has decided she’s now dancing at the other end of the ballroom? Pur-leeeeeeeze!”

Quote:
But there is no pink meteor shower for this announcement; no glittered cabaret or niche community willing to clutch me to its bosom and claim me as a sister.

Quote:
rue, I never liked football or fighting and I do make a beautifully light Victoria sponge when the need arises. But I shamble like a bloke, I burp and fart without shame and I’ve never really got Barbra Streisand.

I read it as humour. There's a thing they have in England, gays are allowed to laugh at themselves - or, more accurately, at stereotypes of themselves - without being accused of being self-haters. There's a long, long tradition of this in things like Carry On films and the like.

Rupert Everett says similar stuff all the time, are you offended by him too?

a judge as harshly as he does?

What comes across judgemental to me is comments that seem to imply being bi is a bad thing.

And actually, I wonder if that's what the self-hating accusations are really about, when it comes down to it - that, and assuming that the dynamic of sexual politics as played out in the particularly confrontational manner that it is in the US is exactly the same everywhere else. But it just ain't so.

 

[financeguy]

I'm not sure whether your generalization is accurate as I haven't spent appreciable time in Europe in recent years. But let's say that for the sake of argument it is. You also then have to acknowledge that the anti-gay equality rights groups in the US are far more confrontational and far more politically connected. Ultimately every individual and every group is a product of its society. And the gays and lesbians in western Europe simply don't live in Alaska or Alabama. Much the same way as you'd see a different picture if you looked at the former Soviet bloc countries and examined gay rights there (hint: they're not exactly liberal).

Well, I take your point. I wouldn't include eastern Europe in what I said. Countries like Poland are still very homophobic. There were reports of Polish immigrants beating up patrons of gay bars in Dublin recently.

 

[melon]

What comes across judgemental to me is comments that seem to imply being bi is a bad thing.

I know that this is a concept that is banded about a lot--that homosexuals hate bisexuals--but I really don't know anyone like this. I know some genuine bisexuals, and I wouldn't dismiss their feelings anymore than I'd want them to dismiss my own.

But, you see, there's a large difference between my bisexual friends and Mr. Muirhead, who sees his sexual awakening as an opportunity to stereotype, bash and ridicule those who were once just like him. And, frankly, I don't have patience for rudeness, let alone idiocy.

 

[Irvine511]

I read it as humour. There's a thing they have in England, gays are allowed to laugh at themselves - or, more accurately, at stereotypes of themselves - without being accused of being self-haters. There's a long, long tradition of this in things like Carry On films and the like.

does an article like this strike you as the place for such humor? particularly by someone who IS NOT GAY -- as he goes to great lengths to tell us.

What comes across judgemental to me is comments that seem to imply being bi is a bad thing.

where did i say this?

And actually, I wonder if that's what the self-hating accusations are really about, when it comes down to it - that, and assuming that the dynamic of sexual politics as played out in the particularly confrontational manner that it is in the US is exactly the same everywhere else. But it just ain't so.

judging by the comments on the website, it was hardly US readers only who came up with the "self-loathing" diagnosis.

i absolutely understand that politics are much more confrontational in the US, but i don't think this is a particularly good example of a british way of dealing with difficult issues.