Comment by hkphooey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hkphooey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Also what about Brian Sewell, a well-known British art critic, writer and broadcaster? Can a gay person be a homophobe?

"Why then do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10? Most of us... have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception.

...

As the procreation of children is hardly the remit of the homosexual and I have never encountered one (other than a priest) who sought a remedy against fornication, and the civil partnership caters for the mutual society and comfort, why one earth have we had all this ballyhoo about gay marriage?

Since the institution of civil partnerships there has been no impediment to their celebration with a party as extravagant as any wedding, but not all homosexuals are so exhibitionist. Most of us are content with what we now have within the law, and are happy to respect the deeply-held belief of sincere, thoughtful and informed Christians for whom marriage is the one sacrament in which we cannot share.

We have wasted our resources on the wrong campaign – the battle still to be won is against prejudice, the most insidious of enemies."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...

> Can a gay person be a homophobe?

I'm not sure if you're asking this question in seriousness, but... yes, gay people can be homophobic. A significant proportion of the population is gay, and every one is unique.

http://gayhomophobe.com/ focuses on anti-gay campaigners who have been caught in gay sex scandals. George Rekers is possibly the most familiar - dedicating his life to anti-gay campaigning while travelling with a personal rent boy.

The simplest polite thing to say about Brian Sewell (who you quote) is that he doesn't represent the wider gay community.

My anecdotal experience has been that the older generations of gay men haven't cared a lot about gay marriage as an issue. Civil unions give them what they needed legally, and "marriage" as a concept separate from that didn't mean much to them.

I'm completely theorizing as to why, but it's a topic I've discussed with many of them and thought about some on my own.

The following impressions apply to older gay men I've met who don't care much about gay marriage as an issue. I'm explicitly stating I don't believe they necessarily apply to a wider gay community.

I think part of it is that older gay men tend to have been in some longer, more committed relationships, and feel that the reality of day to day loving is what matters to them. Give them legal rights with civil unions and they're good to go. They don't need "marriage" to feel more committed.

I think too older men are more comfortable with themselves and who they are. They have been gay and out (at least to some close friends, if no one else) for long periods of time and don't feel as much shame or need to be "accepted" by everyone. So the symbolic meaning of gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions) carries less weight for them.

And related, they've seen the truly big battles that were fought for the right to be out at all. This one feels smaller to them, less essential in comparison. They're happy with what they have. It's all they feel they need.

In Britain today, there is a millionaire gay couple who are suing the Church of England because they want to have a wedding in a church. Is this about symbolism, acceptance or poking a finger in the eye of Christians?

Church weddings are always about symbolism.

Church weddings are a different thing than gay marriage, though. My personal opinion is that anyone who wants one should have one. But at the same time, churches have to have the right to discriminate on memberships and services. I don't think they should refuse gay marriages, but if they choose to do so, that is in fact their right.

Church Of England is its own special beast, and probably shouldn't be allowed to refuse gay weddings. Messy topic, but that's what you get for mixing church and state.

One of many problems with the absence of the separation of Church and State is that discrimination by the Church is discrimination by the State, which makes things unacceptable uses of state power that would be legitimate in an Church that wasn't an integrated part of the State.

Gay people certainly can suffer from homophobia. Some have it so bad they can't even admit to themselves that they're gay.

In this case, I think the quote is incoherent. Of course the battle is against prejudice. But one of the most obvious expressions of that prejudice is the attempt to restrict access to the institution of marriage. Sewell is evidently willing to accept that there's some valid reason for that restriction. I think that's sad, and I think you've put your finger on the reason he feels that way.

It's important to note that Sewell comes from a generation of gay people who not only had to hide who they loved from the public, but then saw many of their friends die from a terrible disease that the government did little to prevent. The idea that gay people should have a right to be married is, to many people of Sewell's age both gay and straight, a very modern notion.

It's quite possible that one might have found an octogenarian Alabaman black man in 60s saying the same sorts of things about the mixing of races.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com