Tag: Lgbt month

To clarify, I like dunking biscuits into my tea, but if it’s not my cup of tea, and someone else wants to dip their biscuit in it, why on Earth would I have a problem? It affects me in no way whatsoever, it has zero consequences to my brew, nada.

If I dunk my biscuit into your tea, however, half drops off and dissolves into your cup, we might have a minor issue; it’s impolite and I should’ve asked first. Truth be told, though, this has never manifested, because I’ve basic manners, and only dunk into my own tea. Ergo, I say; dunk, and let others dunk. It’s a fair and just modern tenet, tasty too, you should try it sometime.

Since Henry VIII’s Buggery Act of 1533, of which defines the term as “an unnatural sexual act against the will of God and Man,” the timeline of LGBT history in UK law reads like the genocidal presupposing of a tyrannical third world regime. Wrought with disturbing arrogances, cruel and misconstrued judgements and fatal sentences, its roots lie biblically, a confine we no longer adhere our hearts and souls fully into, anyway. Least we accept the book was drafted over centuries of prejudiced editing by megalomaniac nutcases who couldn’t possibly have known the word of god any more than an amoeba knows the name of the pond it lives on.

As time moves forward, the religious connotations are secreted under political judgement, yet so inherit is our belief in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, “thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” and for the sake of obeying, it will be 328 years after the passing of the Buggery Act, that the death penalty for it was abolished. Here’s my melon-twister for starters, if law had to be based on the apparent, word of god, what happened, when executing an offender, to deadly sin number five, Ὀργή, or “wrath” to us? And while you’re explaining that one to me, maybe explicate Luke 6:37 too; “do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven?”

Hard to imagine, this would be the way of things until only fifty-four years ago, when despite restrictions The Sexual Offences Act 1967 legalized consensual homosexual acts, privately, and only for over twenty-ones. My own lifetime witnessed this step in the right direction continue. Through the hullabaloo of celebs bravely confessing and campaigning, even during the dawn of AIDS, as Boy George and many others colourfully threw it in their faces, pride to be homosexual was still controversial and a long way from general acceptance. The ingrained discrimination turned from angered hatred to taboo, and the butt of the joke. Dick Emery made his fortune; his angle was awful, but we liked him.

Sticks and stones, not quite as bad as the death penalty, though psychologically damaging, it’s been a rocky road to where we now sit, dunking our biscuits. A gender-neutral era of law, media acceptance and general consensus, where anyone can marry anyone, where the sexual orientation of pop stars is of no significance, and when a character in a prime-time children’s cartoon, namely The Loud House, can have two Dads. A notion as brilliant as the colours of a rainbow.

Even to look back as recent as twenty years ago, where Will Young “came out of the closet,” society has achieved something unthinkable given the history, and for everyone hung, to those necessitating toilet trading, and from those who hid in denial and shame to those queens who wafted it their judicious faces, despite your personal orientation, this is something, in my view to be proud of, and to celebrate.

Yet, when the social media manager of those ordered by government to uphold the law decides to acknowledge this acceptance, on the shortest month of the year marking LGBT History Month, by taking two minutes out of their day to add rainbow colours symbolising Pride, to the backdrop of their Facebook logo, cabin-fevered keyboard warriors gather to accumulate a thread of hatred comments, condemning the decision.

Yep, despite the repulsive and discriminating history, when we finally reach this trailblazing conjunction, Wiltshire Police’s temporary Facebook profile picture is plagued by self-righteous little Englanders, again shamelessly twisting the narrative of positivity for their own wonky agenda. It comes from the same school of thought which devised “All Lives Matter.” Regardless of the plight of a cause, they have to have their share of the glory, less launch their toys from their prams.

Given the plight and horrors history exposes on the campaign, you really have an issue with this?

Largely, the feeble excuse for their prejudges was police should be out there, arresting people, as if every officer on the force gathered around one laptop, each clicking one Photoshop option. See here, it took me precisely two minutes to lone extract a rainbow backdrop off Google and paste it onto my logo, and I kind of like it, might keep it, if it annoys.

The other popular justification is in doing this, police are side-tracking and singling out a particular group, precariously extenuating the issue. Humm… only, it seems by bringing it to your personal attention. Wiltshire Police explain their reasoning, “the rainbow is a symbol of hope. It represents everyone, irrespective of their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability. People are people. All of us need kindness, tolerance and acceptance. Please remember this when you post your comments.”

Top answer is, survey says no; “Just accept people for who they are, there is no room for any form of prejudice, but I cannot help but think that highlighting individual groups just widens the gap, instead of building the bridge.” Really? Two “buts;” you like buts?

Think historically, the death penalty denotes the gap started quite wide, awareness and celebration of said cognizance is a bridge building machine. Some need to take a long hard look at themselves, and dunk their custard cream in a fresh new cuppa. Growling at a rainbow like a dog barks at the moon; give me strength!

One can only conclude, even if it’s ingrained and those passing negative opinion genuinely believe they’re not discriminating, they are. Your archaic notion of abhorrence is regressive, and yet again, unwelcome to general consensus.

If you trust there’s no need to symbolise this progress, then there’s no need to pass negative comment. But by the very fact you did, represents a definite need to; snakes and ladders. Because there’s looming underlining issue, and it lies in your own psyche. Ergo, eradication is teetering, we’ve come a long way; u ok, hun? If the reprehensible repercussions of this episode represent anything, it is not Pride, but shame, and evidently, the sat-nav of equality has not announced we are at our destination, quite yet.

---