On the buses...

So upon finding myself divested of babysitting duty today, I decided to be true to my student nature and arrange to spend the day arsing around town having coffee with various friends. To this end, I had to make use of the public transport disservice. So off I trotted to the no. 2 stop. Now, perhaps I am peculiar in this. God knows, it can be a fitting adjective for me at times. But I always find myself amazed by the things that run through my mind on the bus. They range from the downright banal to the positively epiphanous. Today I found myself gazing around, as usual. Catching the eye of fellow passengers, but being super careful not too keep eye contact too long, as that just doesn't seem to be the done thing, you know. Having spent around three seconds wondering why the grey haired elderly gent to my left could possibly look so grim, my eyes wandered absently towards the back. Sitting a few seats from the back, I noticed this little girl sitting with her father. She was pointing at a dog out the window and smiling back at daddy with that amazing joy that only children can seem to muster. I expect it's due to them yet being tainted by the cynicism the rest of us need for survival in the world. Anyway, the girl and her father were talking about the doggy, and laughing and smiling away whilst giving each other a cuddle. The thought in my head was "Nyaww,cute". I'm not really a kid person at all. But it was touching and sweet, and made me smile.

So you probably think that's the point of this post, relaying a sweet moment I observed on a busy day. Well no I'm afraid, not quite. Having observed the nice Hallmark moment for a few seconds, I glanced off to the other side of the bus. There were two, er, gentlemen (I use the term extremely loosely) sitting behind daddy and little girl, looking over and glaring at them. They were talking to each other and it was clear they were talking about the pair on the other side of the bus. And they were not pleased by their presence at all. "Why on earth would they be bothered by an adorable little girl and her dad having fun?!" you ask.

Quite simple, dear reader. Daddy and the little girl were black. As I looked from one to the other, I thought back to yesterday, when during a general conversation on politics a friend sent me a link to the Irish section of the "white nationalist", neo Nazi website, Stormfront (he was appalled by its existence, by the way, not endorsing it!). I had been to the website once before, after an image search for some celebrity had bizarrely led me there. Being curious as to whether it was actually as bad as was reported, I had a look around. And I found it was every bit as bad, and worse. Oh, there were no forum posts arranging mobs to go attacking blacks and Jews. That's only available to registered users. The site's owner,(who is formed head of the KKK. Need I say more?) is keen on making "white nationalism" appeal to the mainstream. Having read several "logical" arguments about why whites are superior to, oh, everybody, I inevitably came across the typical "f***k off back to the jungle you monkey" imbecile, who couldn't quite keep himself from spewing his vile, blind hatred for the sake of keeping a veneer of respectability.

Because some of them do. They almost sound as if they are having a sound, reasonable debate, and may even have a modicum of sense. They almost sound respectful of their opponents. Kind of like "well I totally respect you, Mr black/Jewish man, but see, I just think we're a bit different and shouldn't mix, is all". Think it's impossible? Not really. Hitler was probably one of the best orators of the 20th century. It's not about speaking truthfully. It's about speaking convincingly. To quote one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." And that's why we have to be careful, and remember to think for ourselves; use our own minds. That's why people like Mr. imbecile are so handy. They are to anti racists what Fred Phelps is to gay rights campaigners: invaluable, because they show these scumbags for what they really are. Ignorant, disgusting bigots. No amount of charismatic verbosity should disguise that. The two cretins sitting glaring, pointing and laughing at an innocent child and her father are further evolved and genetically superior, are they? Looking at daddy and the little girl, I thought back to the same Shakespeare play. "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Replace Jew and Christian with black and white, and think about it.

To marry or not to marry? C'est le question...

God, I'm about as good at blogging as I am at keeping a diary. If I fill half of one in a year, I'm lucky. "Sporadic" is an understatment...

Anyhow, I've decided to give it a proper go. My topic this time is possibly the most divisive one going at the moment. Well I don't do things by halves. Yes folks that's right, it's good old gay marriage. Whether you're a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew or an out and proud screaming queen, the chances are you'll have an opinion on this one. And maybe you'll even have an opinion that differs from all your other dyed-wool and screaming friends! Oh dear oh dear...

No but seriously. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, and am currently in the middle of another debate about. The question at hand is gay marriage versus civil partnership: which should we fight for? This is the main divisive issue within the gay community itself. Personally, I've always more or less favoured CP. Cue the self righteous screams of internalised homophobia from some quarters. I'm afraid it's not that simple however, and good old IH cannot explain away my opinion, or those of many other LGBT people. I believe that as a gay person, I am no different from anyone else, and deserve to be treated equally. In my mind, marriage is predominantly a religious matter, and I respect the right of religions to reject gay marriage as incompatible with their doctrine. While I personally have reconciled my sexuality with my faith, I do not expect my Church to reconcile itself with gay marriage.

So right, that's the religious aspect sorted. "But marriage is a civil matter!", they scream. As regards the civil situation, much of the argument to me seems to boil down to semantics. The main bone of contention seems to lie in the term "marriage". And while I am completely aware of the concept of civil marriage currently exists in most countries, as I said earlier it is construed as mainly a religious matter. I think the majority of objection to the whole concept of gay marriage comes from that association. Obviously, there are some "religious" zealots who froth at the mouth at the mere thought of any kind of social acceptance for gay people. I do think these are the minority though. I think most merely oppose the term marriage, seeing it as a sacred sacramental rite. Therefore, personally speaking, I don't see why properly functioning Civil Partnership legislation, which affords all the same rights and legal protections, can't be a viable option.

However, in relation to our case here in Ireland, the current Bill does not meet those requirements. I find the UK and French models to be more satisfactory. So I think fighting to improve the current bill may be a more pragmatic step than attempting to fight to have it called marriage. Yes, it may be a different name, but if it were amended to a proper and satisfactory standard to do essentially the same thing, then where is the inequality? I agree that marriage is in no way an exclusively religious preserve, although to me personally, that is a key aspect. I meant that society as a whole perceives it as such, thus making the actual term "marriage" so contentious. I think we have to be willing to compromise. Not roll over and take second class citizenship, by any means. But a modicum of pragmatism and realism is required here people. There appears to be a majority of people who support recognition for same sex couples, yes; but see marriage as being a religious institution for one man and one woman. And in the wonderful system we call liberal democracy, I'm afraid majority rules. So, do we try to change their minds by either a) shouting and screaming at them and telling them they're wrong, or b) organising mass protests demanding they accept gay marriage. Or, do we attempt to work with what is essentially the essence of politics: compromise? A huge factor in the debate here in Ireland is the fact that the proposed CP Bill doesn't offer protection to children of gay couples, thus denying the existance of LGBT families. I agree, that needs changing. Sorry to disappoint all you social conservatives out there, but rather like LGBT people themselves, LGBT families are a de facto reality, whether you think it's right or not. And they need legal protections. I just think that these can be achieved just as well with proper CP legislation. I'm arguing that we compromise on terminology. Think about it: why do LGBT people (who are not religious, that is) want to marry? To have civil rights such as kinship, inheritance, family stability etc. So if civil partnerships could provide these, does the name matter?