Wednesday, 5 February 2014

A quick word about yesterday

This is about the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, its effective importance is subjective (not everyone cares about marriage) however, the symbolism of it is of another measure entirely.

I'm talking about the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill.

Two men.
Obviously a fair bit of opposition and as you would expect, a lot of it was entirely misinformed. This morning on TRSFKACK (or The-Radio-Show-Formerly-Known-as-Call-Kaye) - now called Morning Call on BBC Radio Scotland, the usual selection of religious head bangers were present to vent their spleens. Its ironic the same range of emotions that fuel the love one assumes they feel for their partner or spouse has its basis in exactly the same chemistry as that which exists between a same sex couple.

I know many religious proponents (normally the ones most interested in the perpetuation of their particular dogma) don't think homosexuality is 'real' or that if it is, its something a person learned by mistake. At best, in the minds of many religious leaders and of some followers, its an aberration, an abnormality - something that requires fixing.

Two ladies
It goes with out saying, its none of those things. It is as natural to a gay person to feel love and lay down with a person of the same sex as it is for a heterosexual person to feel love and lay down with someone of the opposite sex - but that isn't the point, we could (excuse the choice of words) bang on about that for a long time with out getting any where.

Although I did fill out a consultation document on this subject, support of Same Sex Marriage was incidental, while I think its great two guys or two girls can tie the knot, it was never on my radar. But going back to the 'other measure entirely'...

Not immediately or straight away, but for the future - this will have seriously positive repercussions for all young people growing up incubating a question mark over their sexual preference. It goes with out saying (although I'll say it anyway) it shouldn't matter, no one should feel compelled to pigeon-hole or explain themselves purely to assuage the delicate sensibilities of the moral simpletons of this world.

(Typical) man and woman
Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament sent a message to future generations about normalisation, they slotted into place a huge piece of the jigsaw puzzle, not of any picture but of words - 'Relax, everything is OK.' 

Be in no doubt, coming to understand at a tender age, when you are building the foundations of the adult you will soon become, that you are different from all your friends is undermining enough. For some befrocked hypocrite to then attempt to confirm your worst fears - that there is something wrong with you - is sometimes more than a young mind can cope with.

While there is still a distance to go in sport and other more masculine pursuits (although for the avoidance doubt, that has fuck all do to with sexuality) what happened yesterday removes a huge block in the process of allowing young people to just get on with being themselves.

When you're forming as a person, you watch films - think of all those Hollywood blockbusters ending with a man & woman holding a child (or a dog) normally with a Stars & Stripes fluttering in the back ground - you read books, you look to your parents and community for social cues -  marriage is a big part of it - its how you learn. This won't affect the vast majority of kids growing up into heterosexuality, the Hollywood blockbuster will always be there - but for the minority who are growing up with that question mark? Understand that their feelings for their own sex is as natural as a straight person's are for the opposite sex.

Man and pillow.
Attempting to force a child who is gay (yes, that's how it works) into being straight is as cruel as forcing a child who is straight into being gay - and we know what society thinks of that.

Just something to think about...

Other than that? Kudos to the Scottish Government and respect to opponents of the bill - it was a brave and correct decision indeed. To all the thousands of young folk now listening to the plaintiff ramblings of the religious hardliners who feel the end is nigh? Relax, everything is OK.

LGBT Youth Scotland - for information.

A quick point of order. I know most people of religion are fine with LGBT stuff and vice versa, its not my intention to tar people with the same brush or make sweeping generalisations nor is it my intention to belittle their views. But, there are some religious leaders who really need to move into the current time span, they often have considerable sway in their communities and (sometimes) without knowing, in displaying such disdain for what is a natural (if not mainstream) way of life, their words could lead to a young  person feeling so abjectly miserable that they see no other option than to end their short life.

I don't believe any one wants that.

You can't fix what isn't broken.


  1. Beautifully written, as ever.

    I agree completely with you.

    I think it is time MSPs, MEPs or MPs saw that their religious convictions should not figure in their voting, unless they have made it very plain to the electorate, before their election, that the word of their bishop, rabbi, or imam will come before other considerations, including the will of the electorate or the good of the country.

  2. Thanks Tris.

    I get that they have beliefs but as you say, if they're going to put themselves into positions of sway over the public, they either have to park those beliefs at the door or not assume public office in the first place - the two are not compatible.

    Religion should play no part in government.

  3. "Religion should play no part in government." I fully agree. Yet the House of Lords grants seats to Church of England bishops, and when reform was being proposed, people were seriously suggesting that this privileged position for the English state religion should be balanced by allowing representation for other religions as well. And as for Northern Ireland ...

    Les Cunningham (aka Scaraben)

  4. Hi Les.

    I recognise the screen name from the usual online haunts, thanks for commenting.

    I vaguely remember being a bit dumb-founded at the suggestion of giving seats to other religious reps - it rather misses the point.

    I get that people think their faith is important, it probably is, but to them only.

    What really boils my piss is the suggestion that religion some how informs morals and with out it - well - you'll turn out to be a wrong 'un.

    Again, its not every one of faith who thinks that, but there are those who put themselves in the public eye who then have the temerity to be offended when they're told where to go.


  5. When it comes to the house of Lords the only possible reform is to increase the numbers.

    So, one asks how would they do it?

    What proportion of Muslim clerics would they have? And that would, of course, only represent the Shiites because the Sunni don't have imams.

    What would they do about the Kirk. With a different Moderator every year they'd end up with hundreds of them/

    And what about the Wee Frees!!!?

    The best thing to do is have none at all.

    America and France got that right. As usual Britain got it wrong.

  6. Just give them one seat between the lot of them and they can all arm wrestle for it.

    If not that, they can go in to enclave (or what ever its called) and argue who's god is more omnipotent, that should keep them busy for a while.

    Although one suspects the arm wrestling might provide just as valid an answer...

  7. The correct decision, I'm a christian and totally agree with this. Long before time.


  8. Hi Bruce.

    I think so too.



Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.

Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?