Guest wrote:Guest wrote: Yeah, I said the same a few pages ago - his party loyalty is all-important to him, even if it requires him to deny his own sexuality. He's not the first self-hating gay man on DS; during the debate on legalising gay marriage there were quite a few who were opposed to it. I can understand them being indifferent if they themselves had no desire to marry, but denying that right to those who do is frankly bizarre. It's just as homophobic as the fundy-Christians' attitude is. Actually, when I think about it, I'm sure that one of the most outspoken gay opponents was none other than Trevgo.
Christ, the usual bullshit circular reasoning that any gay person who fails to endorse every part of the current gay agenda must be 'self-loathing'. If you go back a few years, gay activists were completely uninterested in redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Was Stonewall 'self-hating' when its official line was that marriage was an outdated, patriarchal construct that gay folk had no desire to emulate?
The whole debate around the redefinition of marriage should have been just that. Instead homosexual activists turned it into a debate about equal rights, which it never was. Being opposed to marriage being re-defined does not make one 'homophobic' any more that wanting to keep Crufts exclusively for dogs makes one 'cat-ophobic'.
A couple of points here. Firstly, Stonewall is a pressure group and does not, nor does it claim to, represent every single LGB+ person. While that may have been its view on marriage, though I'm not sure it was, it doesn't mean it was opposed to the equalisation of marriage itself. While some gay people did think marriage is outdated and patriarchal and they wouldn't do it themselves,(like some heteros do) far and away most of them simply wanted to have the same choice as heterosexuals as to whether to marry or not. That's called equality. The redefinition of marriage is a separate matter, and I would agree with you that there should be a debate on just exactly how to define it, especially legally. It's a matter of having everything on a level playing field first, then looking at how to change things for everyone, regardless of sexuality.
However, having re-read your second paragraph, it's very obvious that your true problem isn't with the definition or actuality of marriage itself but with the fact that "the gays" are also able to marry now; the use of "homosexual activist" and the comparing gay marriage with animals rather gives you away, dearie.