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.