'Everyone has to ask themselves why they don't like gays'

Ukraine takes aim against 'gay propaganda'

I really wish that the above people would not pretend that their hatred for gay people and their terror of homosexuality comes from the Bible.

The Bible does contain clear negative portraits of homosexual acts, and those gay Christian activists who pretend that it doesn't, or that the writer didn't really mean to include kind and caring people in loving same-sex relationships and would be horrified at that interpretation, are kidding themselves. But the brute existence of such passages in scripture, rare as they are, cannot explain the mass hate to be seen in Ukraine and like-minded countries. It certainly doesn't explain the mass unease in places like the UK and more 'liberal' areas of the US.

Don't try to deny that unease, by the way. You will be lying to yourself. Even if you personally don't feel it, all you have to do is spend time quietly observing a group of ordinary heterosexual young men when one is accused, entirely in jest, of being gay. Previous banter about his level of intelligence, sense of humour and even sexual prowess with women have provoked only good-natured ripostes and easy smiles all round; the moment there is any suggestion that he feels an attraction to men, whether sexual or romantic (I'm not sure everyone in the group usually perceives the difference), the smile is gone, he is instantly surly and defensive and he will often suggest that that accusation is taking banter too far. The accusers seize on his discomfort, not to explore the underlying homophobic feelings which to his credit he works hard to suppress in general, but to tease him the more gleefully about this pretended 'weakness' of being gay. If you were one of the very few people who read my last entry you will know that I am alive to the often unnoticed ways in which unfavourable attitudes towards homosexuality are perpetuated through the unthinking use of detrimental language. It is the same with this kind of 'banter'.

To make my position a little clearer, I'm not over-keen on overtly favourable attitudes either; it irks me that my species with its perceived heightened intelligence must either support or oppose any given sexual orientation as if it were a political party. One may support the appointment of capable women to employment and government positions but one cannot be pro-women, though generations of politicians in the last century have courted The Female Vote by pretending that it is possible. A womb is not a life choice (for most of us anyway), and as far as I can see neither is an attraction to the same gender. I am not myself gay so I am by definition poorly qualified to judge, a position which I wish were more widely taken, and not only in the area of sexuality equality.

I can't offer an explanation for this unease about homosexuality. I don't understand it. Equally, I don't know what Jesus's views on homosexuality are, as I do not believe he is quoted directly on the subject, and even if he has been I have done too much - and perhaps too little - study of the social context, decades after his death, in which the gospels were written to take every attributed saying literally.* I have prayed for guidance in this area and now take the above position; I am given to understand that others have prayed and been differently guided, so from a fact-chasing standpoint I am no further on than I was when I started, but then I am not convinced exclusively by written facts.

My campaign is not for or against homosexuality or any other orientation. I am impassioned to offer an opportunity for people to really consider the things we do thoughtlessly that perpetuate hateful attitudes, and the thoughtless acceptance of the explanation that because someone wrote something down a very long time ago that is the only and unquestionable reason for our prejudices.

* The curse of the casual Christian history student, which if unchecked can make a mockery of the whole idea of faith.

P. S. In an effort to expose the thoughtless antagonism also present among 'liberal' elements towards people acting on different moral impulses, I see members of the organisations which attempt to 'cure' homosexuality at least acting in some degree on the love to which Jesus quite unquestionably did repeatedly call us. Before you oppose this suggestion automatically, imagine that you believe sincerely that there is eternal existence outside this life, that sorrow in this life is as nothing compared to joy with our Creator for the rest of time, and that people who engage in the sin of sodomy will go straight to Hell and stay there. Wait until you are imagining that before reading on. ... In that belief, an attempt to stop the sin is an attempt to ensure that those people avoid an eternity of suffering. It wouldn't be very loving for someone in that belief to just leave the sinners to their unending punishment, would it? Think about it.

'Gay' as a derogatory adjective

I find that there is a tendency, especially perhaps among young people, to use the word 'gay' to mean 'of poor quality', 'bad', 'rubbish'. My contemporaries at high school employed this usage of the word; I trust that they have now grown out of it. (I have in general fallen out of touch with them and so have no recent data from which to judge.) I challenge my young colleagues about this repeatedly, though with precisely no positive result and sometimes with the result that they do it more often and chortle about it. I have brought it up in my reviews with my manager, who is excellent, with apparently as little effect.

Why is this homophobic expression seen as so unimportant? The very ease with which it is passed off when I do bring it up makes it the more unpalatable: the people who use it don't care that I and others find it offensive, or that it perpetuates the social norm of homosexuality - and by extension homosexuals - being seen as undesirable and aberrant. They even laugh at it. I am a student of language, so I have more respect for how it can be used to create significant effects, but it doesn't take much study to realise that if a child is told repeatedly that it cannot do something it will be less likely to try. By extension it seems clear to me that if said child hears that its sexual orientation is synonymous with something broken it will see that aspect of itself as broken and be more likely to suffer as a result.

We no longer use racial stereotypes in general conversation, and if we do we are sanctioned. My workplace for one has a strict policy on this. Demeaning gender stereotypes are frowned upon as well. So why is it more acceptable to use 'gay' to denote something rubbish? Is it because many gay people are white males (my preferred reason)? Because society has not yet got to the point of organically outlawing this discrimination as it has with many racial and gender insults? If it is the latter, those who use the word in this way are amoral sheep, bleating it repeatedly until specifically instructed not to.

Maybe that's the argument to use to stop them doing it. Simply telling them that it is unacceptable didn't work, and their concern for me was insufficient to stop them after it became quite clear that I personally find it offensive. Suggesting that gay people might not like it only prompted even one of the team members I respect the most to inform me that s/he has a family member who is gay and who uses the word in this way; I still don't see the relevance of this information to the current situation. To their credit I believe that if I were gay that fact, in combination with my finding it offensive, would stop it. I believe this to be the first situation to have caused me to wish even briefly that I were not heterosexual, which I think is telling about the way non-heterosexual orientations are perceived and which supports my argument to stop promoting this perception.

On several occasions I have repressed the urge to say something that I think would offend them, or make them uncomfortable enough to think about their own use of language. They know that I am a Christian and I'm sure they're aware that there are many Christian groups whose chief pleasure in life inexplicably appears to be the denouncing of homosexuality and gay people, so I have contemplated telling them that I find homosexuals to be all sorts of evil and subhuman, with the aim either of making them realise the level of offence possible by their use of 'gay' as a derogatory adjective or of making them think I am a rabid homophobe who must not be encouraged. Unfortunately, whilst either of these aims if achieved would probably reduce the instances of 'gay' being used in this way, the initial statement would be a gigantic lie and as such I do not believe myself capable of uttering it.

So I continue as I have been, challenging it when I can. My remaining hope is that by repeating my objections as often as possible I will bore those around me into not wanting to provoke another repetition by using 'gay' as a derogatory adjective.

Another message sent to the OU after an oral exam

I just had my L211 French oral exam on Elluminate and neither the moderator nor the poor soul who had to share my group session could hear a word I was saying after the first few seconds. I had logged on 45 minutes early to check my settings and when I found the problem I called the computer helpdesk, who couldn't help me. I have never had this problem before either with Elluminate tutorials or with my L194 Spanish oral last week, so I don't think it's suddenly my headset that's causing the problem, but I fetched the external microphone from my dictaphone anyway in case the headset had got knocked or something in the last week. The problem persisted.

Will I be able to re-take the assessment at all? I don't especially want my technological problems to be 'taken into account' because if no one could hear anything I said it's not as if there's any recording for the assessors to go on. My French is good and I should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that. I was even looking forward to this exam because I was confident that I would do well and get a good mark. Now I'm looking at a fail for not actually contributing at all, or at best a 40% pity pass from a kindly assessor.

Elluminate is a TERRIBLE way to assess speaking competence. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, for example for students who live in countries where there are no OU centres. The lady who was in my group coped admirably and her French is excellent so I'd have thought she wouldn't need anything to be taken into account, but in case there's a borderline mark or anything I hope that the challenge she faced brilliantly in being effectively all on her own in the exam will be recognised.

I have worked very hard for this course and got good marks for my TMAs, but I am now bitterly disappointed and very worried. I have a disabling helath condition and this situation will only make my health worse. If I hadn't put a down-payment on my next course, and if I had any other option than the Open University, I would withdraw from the degree path.

Anne