My first proper gay rights rant...

Well, my work cheque came this morning, but because it was crossed, I had to lodge it to my account, so I won't be able to access the money until early next week. This puts the kibosh on my plan to visit my friend Sarah in Wimbledon this evening, and pretty much puts paid to the weekend as a whole. Poverty, thy name is a third-level mature student!

And still no sign of my grant...

With Semester 2 beginning next week, my chillout period is almost at an end, and I am (almost) proud to say that I did absolutely nothing for it except spend half the time in bed. I did get my 4 month old gym schedule redone yesterday though, so next week should see me incapacitated with stiffness as my body adjusts to it.

And now to go off on a totally different point.

Some blogs I've been reading at the moment are caught up in arguments over whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed, or legitimised, to look at it another way. Most of the parties concerned are Canadian, as certain court rulings there are making it a topical issue at the moment. It's not something to which I've ever given a great deal of thought. Anyone who reads this will see that I don't generally campaign on behalf of the gay camp all too often (appalling pun unintended). Well maybe it's about time.

The main point that have been made against gay marriage and gay unions in general are that it's 'unnatural'. This reminds me of something...

A couple of years back, I saw a programme on television presented by a gay man whose area of expertise was in animal behaviour (at least, that's how I remember him), and he was interested in how frequently homosexuality occurred in the animal kingdom. As part of his investigation, he looked at swans, sheep, and others, or more accurately, he waited to see if any of them engaged in same-sex 'relations'. He collected some pretty illuminating data and presented it to some government figure who was charged with indirectly determining the curriculum of school age children. His argument was that homosexuality, rather than being a fringe concern, was a widespread variation in sexuality across all species, and as such, instruction on it should be provided in schools alongside 'normal' sex education. Rather unsurprisingly, he came up against a brick wall.

This is what gets me. If such instruction was approved, it would enlighten shool children immensely. Homosexuality is not some weird anomoly, it is a natural variation in human and animal sexuality. It is widespread in the animal kingdom, so it follows that it should be common amongst humans as well. The very term that is often applied to it, 'unnatural', is WRONG, plain and simple. It is completely the opposite. It has been around for centuries, meriting mention even in that oh-so-credible source of history known as the Bible:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

My...er...favourite. Leviticus 20, Verse 13, apparently. You have to hand it to the Bible for strident and hysterical use of language.

Then there are the points made by some bloggers against gay marriage. I won't link to them directly, as the blogs as a whole contain some of the most appallingly smug, self-satisfied online writing you'll ever come across. Left-field politics in general are railed against, and a point of crusading against 'sloppy liberal thinking' is made (Three words, boys. Pot. Kettle. Black.), so I shall spare you. Here are some of the points, each accompanied by my view.

- Legitimising gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage as a whole, and could lead to other structures such as polygamy becoming the norm.

The institution of marriage holds nowhere near the sway in society that it once did. It's hard to say what exactly caused this, but the advocates of gay marriage came on the scene long after the rot set in, so they can't be blamed. Having said that, there is still life in it yet, and it is certainly something worth aspiring to. It will not be rocked to it's very core by permitting gays access to it. What may happen is that a process of its re-evalution may happen, but all things considered in these current times, that may well be what's needed for it.

As for polygamy becoming the norm, please spare me. First off, it is already the norm in certain countries, and that is down to the pervading culture of that country. It is not the Western norm now, and for that reason will not become the norm after the introduction of gay marriage.

- Marriage is an institution, not a right, and therefore gays are not automatically entitled to it. As such, all arguments that have the concept of discrimination at their core are redundant.

Whatever. You can nitpick with terms all you like, the fact remains that marriage is the single best way of gaining legal and social recognition of two people as a couple, and as long as it is denied to gays, something is wrong. Pure and simple. It has also been argued that marriage exists mainly as a unit within which to raise children, so seeing as gays will not produce children, they should not have it. That is merely ONE aspect of it. And who says gays aren't going to raise children within it anyway? (More about this later)

- Granting gay marriage equality will lead to a corresponding reduction in respect for religious freedom.

Granted, some people have been sacked as they have refused to perform same-sex unions, and others have been taken to court for the same reason. If I was vengeful, I'd probably feel like doing the same, but the moral of the story here seems to be this: Find a minister who is sympathetic to your cause. It's not that hard to make discrete enquiries beforehand. Myself, I may or may not get married, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't do it in a church of organised religion.

The flip side of this coin, and what I really believe is at issue, is that if gay marriage becomes legitimised, religous bigots might feel more marginalised. Oh poor them! It may be fair to say that gays have grown intolerant of organised religion in general, but when it (in particular, Catholicism) has persecuted them for centuries, it's not completely without reason, is it? Here, the two sides just need to live and let live, and of the two, religion seems to have a bigger problem in this regard. To my knowledge, Mardi Gras and Pride marches don't have an anti-religion-themed float, do they? Religious freedom can sometimes be construed as the freedom of religions to restrict the freedom of other groups as part of their agenda.

- Gay marriage? Next stop, gay couples adopting children.

Well, it sort of follows, doesn't it? To be honest, I'm still not 100% sure about the whole issue here myself, but for this exact reason, I'm going to keep my mouth shut, except to say that the only way to find out how children grow up under gay parentage is to let them grow up under gay parentage, and who knows? Inconceivably, they might just turn out to be normal, well-adjusted adults themselves. But we won't know until we try. And there are plenty of people, both parents and children, willing to give it a shot.

There's nothing quite like a young conservative, is there? The lack of life experience coupled with the fog of delusion that makes them believe that they know it all is...um...bemusing. And that's being diplomatic about it. I always thought it was rather creepy. You can understand it in someone of the previous generation because it's usually down to the fact that they simply haven't changed with the times, but on a young person? What's their excuse?

Anyway, I've noticed the term 'liberal' and 'leftist' being tossed around in America and Canada with more contempt these days than usual. These people acknowledge their position on the political spectrum and boy, are they proud of it. I remember Kurt Vonnegut, in his essay Cold Turkey, sarcastically summed up the differences between left and right, and it could be inferred that assigning labels to a bundle of extreme political views, such as those espoused by the right, legitimises those views. Well, let's have a look at what is usually typical of a right-wing stance:

Abortion: Don't want it for anyone.

Divorce: Didn't want it for anyone.

Gay marriage: Don't want it for anyone.

All of the above involve the Right restricting the choices of other people. This is what gets me as well. In a democracy, these options, as unpalatable as some of them may be to some, should be available to all. It is then upto each individual to decide whether they want to opt for them or not. But at least they have the choice. If they are available, a person who is pro-life can forgoe an abortion, while the person who wants/needs one can avail of it. Everyone catered for. But no, the Right will have it that their byline becomes everyone elses as well, through the imposition of the above. Democracy, my arse.

In one sense, that's why I believe the availability of the above three should never be put to the public vote. It's also why I think 'Right' should be dispensed with, and 'Restrictors' used instead. Of course, there are areas in which these people argue for less control. Guns, and rights of corporations. Duh!

Lastly, the characterisation of liberals and The Left has always been as limp-wristed ineffectual 'weenies', merely because they tend not to talk so tough, knowing that in the face of complex, near insolvable problems, doing so is a load of bollocks. Now though, that characterisation seems to have been strengthened more than ever, and is fast become the biggest and most moronic fucking cliché that exists in political discourse today. It's like we're regressing, going backwards. Sometimes I despair, I really do.

Fingers crossed that 180 degree turn comes soon.