Gays.

Coming soon (OMGLOLOL).

------

So I guess I had better write it now then! Anyway, trolling around on the internet earlier gave me an idea as to what that I wished to write about (sorry, been reading Mansfield Park); and I decided that I will like to interpose my somewhat... unconventional thoughts on that of gays and gay-pride (incl. parades). Now, evidently, it takes a more assiduous mind than mine to cover this topic with any sense of propriety, due consideration, or with any completeness; however, I feel that if I can just splurge my thoughts down in an entirely random way, then we can all at least learn what I'm trying to say! What I mean is: I have no idea what this is going to say, or where it's going to go, but that hopefully you'll be able to draw something of my thoughts from it. :).

Perhaps some historicism might help to make my position seem more reasonable; though, of course, my knowledge is merely common-ground and is sporadic at best. Obviously, homosexuality was not at all the taboo that it is nowadays, back in the period of the ancient Greeks and Athenians. In fact, you might say that homosexuality was actively encouraged; and some marked philosophers themselves were, in fact, people who took particularly enjoyment from their own brand of sexual enlightenment. Promiscuity, and licentiousness was not the verboten that it is seen as nowadays - it was seen as becoming, scholarly, and commonplace. Throughout history we see this recurrence of thought: homosexuality during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was merely something that was done, and not something to be remarked upon. Sex was sex, and if you choose to copulate with someone of the same sex, then so be it. There was no heteronormacy, or cisgendered speculation; it was merely profligate living to excess; hedonism unmatched since. You will have to forgive the somewhat idealistic interpretation of history: Thomas Aquinas, centuries before, had condemned homosexuality second only to the crime of murder; it was still denounced internationally by religious movements, and sodomy still carried a heavy penalty throughout the world - but it was these clandestine leanings that I spoke of, where homosexuality was prevalent, and enjoyed.

As far as I know, the decriminalisation of having homosexual sex began around the 1800's, and was widespread come the latter part of the century; though some countries actually repealed the declassification, and reinstated penal measures against the gay community, but on the whole, gay rights were exploding throughout the world. For the UK, what I think we can say about the 19th centuries approach to homosexuality, is that it was indicative of the unstable political, social, and class systems that were in place throughout the 1800's. To put it into perspective: You were seeing the 'new woman', Foucault spoke of "an entire machinery for true discourses [about] sex"; there was enfranchisement, the suffragette movement, land reforms. It's perhaps demonstrable most cleanly in the works of people like Oscar Wilde (who was actually sentenced to prison in the 1880's); revolutionary vociferous denouncement of political and penal convention. So, basically, what I mean is, it was a time demarcated by upheaval across all aspects of life - there was no cogent, nor structured, policy regarding the classification of homosexuality, and governments were switching backwards and forwards.

It's hard to internationally contextualise the issue of the gay rights movement, because it received such disparate levels of acceptance, or animosity, in different countries. Of course, some societies still view it as something to admonished against, and punished accordingly; some societies are entirely indifferent to the sexual practices of its populace; and some societies merely tolerate. For the sake of my own brain, I will concentrate mainly on the UK perspective, simply because it is what I know best - though I will mention America. Hopefully this won't seem myopic, but merely limited by my own ignorance.

For most people, and for most perspicacity, perhaps it's most relevant to address the 20th century gay-rights movements. Pre-1920's was a stagnant time for gay-rights, and it was a period marked by arrests, and scandal. I think the most important events, however, can be easily communicated. Alfred Kinsey, the renowned sexologist (that's how I see him) was born at the end of the 1800's, and published his work on homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, &c., in 1948 - demonstrating that homosexuality was in fact much more widespread than people had imagined. 14 years later, Illinois became the first state to 'lightly' decriminalise gay sex between two consenting adults; and 7 years later the Stonewall riots bring the issue to the public's attention. It wasn't, however, as rapid a transformation as was hoped: it wasn't until 1973 that the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, and not until 1982 that Wisconsin became the first state to outlaw discrimination based on sexuality.

It's then up around the turn of the 21st century that American states start granting the rights to civil partnerships (Massachusetts being the first); and that brings us fairly neatly to where we are today - obviously Prop. 8, and Obama's half-hearted attempt to bring legal equality to homosexually married couples, are still being debated - but, adroitly, this is as good a place as any. Your basic details regarding the UK are quite a lot simpler: 1967 saw the first age of consent for homosexual sex put at 21, and that continued to decrease over the next 30 years; discrimination was criminalised around the turn of the century, and revolution in the forms of Outrage (most prominently) brought gay-rights to the attention to a broad spectrum of people.

So. There we have it. Gay rights in 500 words. Ish. Sorry for lecture, but necessary for my reasoning. Given the fact that I would like to insidiously like to ignore religion for this blog, I think we can just dive straight into it.

What I think about modern gay movements, is that there is a distinct and pronounced hypocrisy in the way that they address, and execute well-reasoned ideas. The idea of giving a brief history of the gay-rights movement was mainly to show how difficult, and long it has been going on, and thus to make my point all the more readily. The best way of explaining what I feel is to take the issue of gay-pride parades. Now, I see this as a perfect reasonable idea (under one proviso), but I see it as poorly executed and unnecessarily counter-productive. What a gay-pride parade entails is the exact opposite of what gay-rights movements have sought so long to secure: integration into 'mainstream society' or the 'societal norms'.

What you have in a gay pride parade is an inclusive and intimidating collection of people from the gay community demonstrating just how different they are. For years fags have campaigned for equality, and to be included in what we would call a societal norm; now that the objective is fairly well accomplished, they seem intent on distancing themselves at every opportunity. It is one thing to be proud of who you are, it is another to be proud of what you are; it is one thing to want to revel in what you are, and another to do so in a way that marginalises a community that have persecuted you for such a long time. I can't help but feel that whilst legitimate in intent, it's counter-productive in execution. Not because of men in thongs, or chicks with dicks slapping kids in the face; not because of rampant drug-taking, or promiscuous and uninhibited sex (these are merely public displays of commonplace behaviour), but because of the main message of the parades being: "Hey, look at us, we're different. Honestly, check us out. Omg look how flaming we are; see that guy wearing a rainbow! Oh he is insane." Great, and all, but there are ways and means to be proud of who you are without marginalising or alienating a community still not 100% comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.

Perhaps in an ideal world the idea of a parade would be only beneficial; would lend credence to legitimacy of homosexuality, and would further the inclusion of gay people into the community - but at the moment all I see it as doing is demonstrating just how 'different' they are. A balance needs to be struck between being proud of what and who they are, and how by being proud they set back all they fight for. If it's a case of wild, uninhibited fun, then I am all for it - rampant sex parties are a go in my book - but if, as I think the case is, it is a parade to highlight differences between the two communities, I don't think it's a good idea. I am all for freedom of expression, but being proud of what you are is not one of those freedoms - the hypocrisy of an exclutionist parade organised by a group long excluded is not lost on most people.

Don't we all see the irony? It just seems farcical to use such a counter-intuitive method of being proud of themselves. I don't even believe in the pride of what you are; I think that's a fallacy, and it's stupid. You can be proud of who you are, and of certain parts that make you who you are; but being proud of your sexuality is ludicrous. It is archaic and unnecessary: It's a genetic and unavoidable product, sexuality, so why should we acclaim it?

If you take parades out of the mix, I would be slightly more comfortable with the issue. If someone wants to be proud of what they are inside, I'm struggling to have any legitimate complaint to that; but why should one persons pride be inflicted on others'; does not it trivialise other people, and other societal trends? Are we not in turn marginalising other sexualities, or other fetishes, or other races? Why should we demarcate so publicly the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals? Be proud; fuck around in a thong, do whatever the hell you want, but don't expect it to further your cause. If parades were just for fun -- as parades should be -- again, I would have no issue, but there not; they're seen as a platform for the advancement of the movement, and I just don't get it. And I'm gay.