I love opinions, don't you?

The great things about opinions is that they generally don't matter, you can look at them then either agree of disagree, as long as the person with the opinion has no power to enforce them they are reasonably harmless. There are situations where this is not the case, bringing up children would be a point in question. If you bring up children to listen to your opinion that being black is inferior, being poor is inferior or being gay is inferior, almost certainly that child will grow up sound in the knowledge that this really is the case. Tell them the reverse of that, tell them we are all equal and they will grow up convinced of the validity of that statement.

Governments and the media also shape the beliefs of people with their opinions. It is a known fact that a newspaper that shows allegiance to a political party can and does change the outcome of an election. Communism has thrived under such a system for years, deprive the public of the truth and they will believe what you tell them. It is a sad fact that most civilised countries media use the same philosophy all too often. The 1980's was a year of total domination in the UK by the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher, they continually won because they had the backing of the media. The last election in the UK observed the media switch sides to New Labour and the outcome was a landslide victory. Of course it is possible to use the argument that they would have won anyway and that the media just wanted to be seen to be backing the winning team each time, a difficult proposal to argue against. Possibly when there is so much bad feeling toward a government as there was towards the Conservatives then no amount of media hype is going to salvage anything for them. In the case of a close call, I am  not so sure.

My Opinions  

Schools and Education of kids in general

Promoting homosexuality. How exactly does a person promote homosexuality? To believe this is possible is to believe that homosexuality is a learned behaviour pattern. I am living proof that it cannot be. I have known I was gay from a very early age, as young as 5, way before I knew anything about homosexuality of even that it existed. I was brought up in a family where homosexuality was not talked about and on the very occasional time that it appeared on television the program would be turned off. I did not know any gay people that I was aware of until I was way passed adolescence. I have been married to a woman for almost 15 years and I have four wonderful children all through heterosexual sex. Despite all of this I am still 100% gay. There is nothing I can do about it, if the teaching of sexuality were to make any difference then I would surely be completely heterosexual. So what is the effect of this fear? It prevents schools, through misinterpretation and fear from even mentioning homosexuality in schools. They will not have any positive information on the premises concerning homosexuality. The result of this? Young gay people who cannot change their sexuality have to go through it at school encouraged to believe that they are in some way abnormal. They are denied the same basic right that heterosexual children receive especially in relation to safe sex and precautionary measures, normally in direct ignorance the law which clearly states that such information should be provided.

Are gay families 'proper' families?

This directly affects children such as mine that the school have to insist do not come from a proper family because I am homosexual. They can say they do because they have both a mother and a father that are married to each other but were they confronted with me being gay they would have to say that I am abnormal and as such my children come from an abnormal family structure. This rolls over onto bullying too. The schools are virtually powerless to intervene when a child is bullied because of the homosexuality of their parents or their own homosexuality. The school would, in fact, have to agree with the bully that the child is abnormal and either their parents or their own behaviour was not acceptable in a 'normal' society. Thankfully, since the removal of section 28, schools can be more honest but the homophobia still remains and the habit of not acknowledging Gay families as 'normal' is still there

This in a free country where no harm is done against society because of homosexuality. Most crimes associated with homosexuality are actually committed by heterosexuals, even when you take consideration of per head of population for sexuality then heterosexuals are by far statistically more likely to be paedophiles, perpetrators of child abuse and guilty of obscene acts than homosexuals. How many heterosexuals get prosecuted for having sex in a public place in relation to homosexuals? The fact is, it is illegal for homosexuals to have sex in public places yet heterosexuals can do so as long as it is not perceived to be obscene. Heterosexuals also practice buggary or anal sex far more commonly that homosexuals. That is a known fact. Another major turning point occurred in 1999 when for the first time there were more new cases of HIV infection amongst heterosexuals than there were amongst homosexuals in the UK. Homosexuals can get prosecuted for having sex in the same building as another homosexual unless the building is deemed to be distinctly separate and self contained.  The result of that would be that a gay couple that have been monogamous for years have a friend over to stay in their spare room. Were the couple to indulge in sex on that night then all three would be deemed to have committed an offence. There is no rule that covers consensual sex between more than two men either. Heterosexuals can have group sex with any number of individuals without any fear at all yet more than two men having sex does result in conviction. 

I am a gay man that just happens to have 4 children. Many people have accused me of not being really gay because I have children, because I chose the conventional heterosexual route to having children. Maybe there is an element of truth in that statement, certainly from the evidence there must be. I got married, I had sex with a woman and I had children, worse yet, I did it at least 4 times (did sex 4 times not the other stuff). So, on the evidence I must be straight, wouldn’t you agree? Ok then, lets throw some other facts into this equation and see what happens. At 20 I had a two-year relationship with a guy, a very active relationship in every way, it didn’t work out but … two years not two weeks as with most gay relationships. Then there was the marriage thing; I was desperate to have children, it was as though I could not move on with my life unless I had children then I met ‘her’. I met this woman who was fascinated by gay men, she had been through a string of affairs with straight men and all were disasters and back then, the mid 80’s, just about all music was gay, it was the age of the new romantics, Boy George, Marc Almond, Frankie … all around were gay images. It just worked, I fell in love with my best friend and that just happened to be a woman.

We both knew we wanted kids, we knew that if we had kids we wanted to be married but we never worried which came first. Eight months after meeting she was expecting a baby, we went to our local church and the guy in the black dress said he could do a marriage in six weeks and that’s what we did. My one mistake was not telling her I was gay until the eldest was a month old, I only told her then because I kept literally bashing into my old boyfriend and it turned out she knew him. I wanted to be the one to do the telling. It caused friction eventually but not at first, we spent years playing boy spotting together. After the third child things were becoming stressful and every little thing that went wrong was because I was gay. If the car broke down it was because I was gay, if the washing machine dies, blame the poof. It was just one of those recurring situations. A car accident in 1991 left us with a very changed circumstance, no car, I was in deep depression and out of work, and she was broody and wanted a fourth. I could not think of any argument against it except we were broke, we had no car and I was a mess but as it was all my fault because I was gay, guilt won in the end and child number 4 was born in 1993. Babies were easy to produce, there were hardly any failed attempts and so just seven years ago we had sex for the very last.

We went along, mostly getting along; me being gay was forgotten behind the everyday running of the household until … 1995. There was this guy, he was young, he was cute and he was very available. After an evening of drinking I had sex with him. I told her the next day; I couldn’t keep a secret like that. She was cal for several weeks then the crying started, the arguments, the recriminations all over again. This was to be the final time me being gay was an issue, that year we really spoke about it, what it meant for the future. Every year after that things improved and we got closer and became, once again, the best friends we had started out being, not lovers, never again could we be that. I came out in the summer of 1998; I went from a fat man with no friends to a slim man with more friends than I could keep up with. Within the year I had a boyfriend, it only lasted 7 months but hey … 7 months, not bad.

Now, up to date, where do we go from here? We  decided to get a divorce in 2000, she is remarried with a 2 kids and I am living with a wonderful man with the four kids though 2 now live away from home

So, back to the question at the start, am I ‘really’ gay? Yes, I am. I could never have sex with another woman, the purpose of that is gone, sex now is for pleasure alone and I get that from men. The bigger questions is, can you handle that? 

Politics

My view on politics is really quite simple. I support a government that support those worst off in society. If that means that the rich are slightly less well off or shoulder more of the burden then so be it. Wealthy people generally have options to escape payment of tax if they wish, not just by leaving the country but by employing and excellent accountant. No amount of quality accounting can make a poor person better off or a disabled person self sufficient. It is most important to protect those more vulnerable in society, we all need to play our part. I am also in favour of those unable to work full time to be strongly encouraged to take on voluntary work that they are easily capable of doing. Most people can do some form of work, there are plenty of groups and organisations desperate for people to help out without pay for just a few hours each week. I do not appreciate people that claim benefits then do paid work as well, I do not support people that cannot be bothered to do any form of work. I would guess, at the moment, I would have to say I lean toward Labour. Saying that, there are a few things they also do that I do not approve of. One such things is the benefits integrity program this is a scheme thought up by the last Conservative administration that Labour fought the introduction of whilst in opposition yet now uses with vigour. The intention is too discover those people that are currently receiving benefits that should not be. The theory is good but the reality is a whole lot different. People with real need that are perhaps borderline are in the first instance losing their benefit for months whilst they await an appeal. At appeal most get it back but are now severely drained by the ordeal. Disabled people in particular go through a great many ordeals by application form to get what they are entitled to. This one is the big one amongst those. DWP doctors are generally instructed to assess patients on the basis that they are exaggerating their needs and that they are working the system (fiddling). The sort of questions they use to catch people out are laughable. Did you know that a person is deemed self sufficient if on one day a week they can cook themselves beans on toast? This even applies if they are single parents and have to provide food for small children. The fact that they cannot prepare an adequate family meal is not taken into consideration. If on one day during a week they can walk up a flight of stairs or 150 feet with a stick they are fully mobile? This despite the fact that there are the majority of days when that person can hardly walk at all. A parent caring for a handicapped child must be able to clearly state how many minutes they spend each night taking their child to the toilet or comforting them to claim a night time care allowance. If the doctor examines a child and they say hello then they are deemed to not have severe learning difficulties even though 'hello' could be their only word at 12 years old. The system is not flexible enough to take into consideration the whole picture and all circumstances, it is simply based on a points scoring system. Each question such as those highlighted above, is given a point, if you don't score enough you permanently lose benefit. Even those awarded benefit for life have the benefit assessed regularly to see that they are not fiddling the system. Surely the amount of money saved (the scheme actually runs at a loss) is not worth the extra anxiety and pressure placed on already vulnerable people just to catch the few that should not be claiming? As i said, it costs the government more to administer the scheme that they actually recover in preventing fraudulent claims. I could understand it if it were a case of murder or personal abuse but this scheme creates victims of the people, the very people society should most want to protect. I have seen elderly people leave a DSS tribunal in tears having lost their claim for retaining a benefit they were awarded for life despites more than likely having a real need for that benefit to bring their quality of life anywhere close to that of another person of their age. Some of these people have been forced by their disability to leave the high paid jobs they were  good at, where they contributed considerable amounts to the treasury yet are forced to live on basic income support, worse yet, if they are under 60 they are forced to sign on as unemployed and subject to the humiliation of having to look for a job they will never find or would be capable of doing if they did. The system as it is needs a massive overhaul.

It Ends