I turned 32 a couple of months ago. I've been out for 11 years now and with each year I become more and more comfortable in my own skin. I'm not ashamed to be gay, in fact I'm happy to be gay. I've always said to my straight friends that being gay is no different to being straight and that the only difference is that gay people fancy people of the same sex while straight people go for the opposite sex. This week I realised I was wrong. Being gay is very different to being straight. 

Since coming out I've had seven different jobs (I wasn't sacked from any before you start jumping to conclusions - I'm just ambitious!) and in each one I experienced the expected nerves at interview, not wanting to seem too annoyingly keen or too laid back. I went through the awkward first day in each job, instantly forgetting everyone's name as soon as it left their mouths, not certain how to answer the phone and never too sure how many cups of tea was deemed reasonable to drink in one day. Everyone experiences these cringey but unavoidable things in their new job though so you just ride it out and deal with it, becoming more and more comfortable each week and praying for another new starter so you're no longer the newest employee.

In each one of the seven jobs I've had since coming out I've experienced something far more anxiety-inducing than forgetting someone's name. It's often said that you never really stop coming out and that's definitely true in the place of work and in each new job I've had since coming out I've had various levels of anxiety around the fact I'm gay. I dreaded the inevitable question that would no doubt come in week one, maybe week two if my new colleagues weren't overtly nosy! "So have you got a girlfriend Wayne?"

When I look back on each of the jobs I've had since I started to identify as gay I can honestly say that not one of my bosses ever made me feel uncomfortable about my sexuality before or after they knew I wasn't straight. The fear I had about having to answer that question and to come out at work was partly due to my lack of confidence in myself and partly due to the fact I prejudged my colleagues - something I am quite embarrassed and ashamed of in hindsight. 

No matter how cool each set of colleagues was about me being gay (and I've never experienced any hostility or homophobia in any job) it made absolutely no difference to how I felt when moving on to a new place of work with new people. The areas I have worked in (retail, private training, healthcare) are not overtly masculine arenas, in fact you could argue that they each have a fair representation of gay people - it's not as if I've been a premiership footballer or worked on an oil rig. When I look back at how I felt going in to each job I feel guilty. I feel guilty that without meeting the people I was to work with I had made assumptions that at least some of them would be uncomfortable with me being gay and in turn that would affect their attitude towards me. I guess it was the fear of being disliked for something I couldn't help.

I've always been aware that I possessed this somewhat irrational and somewhat logical fear - logical in the sense that as human beings we are programmed to protect ourselves from harm, whether it's physical or emotional. But it didn't matter how much I tried to talk myself out of expecting some kind of workplace homophobia, I always felt sick with anxiety about meeting new colleagues, especially straight males - after all, they'd all assume I fancied them and would not want to talk to me right? Such a strange view for me to have as I became good friends with many colleagues, including straight males, many of which became and remain friends.

I've thought about what each workplace could have done differently to make me feel more at ease when I started working with them; not that I'm blaming any of them for the fear and anxiety I felt, but employers do have a responsibility to make sure all of their staff feel comfortable at work. I've thought about what they could have done but I've always struggled to come up with anything - until now.

Last week I started working with Stonewall, the biggest British charity working for the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Contrary to popular belief not everyone who works at Stonewall is gay, lesbian or bisexual. About 75% are but the difference between starting work at Stonewall and any of my previous employers is that no one makes assumptions about your sexuality either way. Again, I'm not trying to criticise any employer that I have worked for previously, after all, most people are straight so an assumption that a new employee will also be straight will very often be proven right. The people who interviewed me for my job at Stonewall knew I was gay because I wrote about my coming out experiences and the RUComingOut website in my application so when I started on my first day I knew I didn't need to worry about them asking the girlfriend question. But what about my other new colleagues? Well none of them assumed anything about me. Some asked me if I had a partner during after work drinks but not one of them made an assumption about my sexuality, well not in a question directed right at me anyway! 

So here's what I've learned in the last week. When straight (and gay) people assume everyone else is straight, it isn't meant as a form of oppression, a way of marginalising gay people, but it can inadvertently cause that. My previous employers weren't homophobic, they didn't set out to make me feel awkward or to worry. So what can employers do to make gay, lesbian and bisexual people feel more comfortable when starting work with them? Well they can do what Stonewall do - make no assumptions. Managers and staff need the right training to enable them to make staff feel welcome whatever their orientation. 

"So Wayne, have you got a partner?"

One word changes. What's in a word? Girlfriend, partner, does it matter? Yes. To me it would have mattered. In that simple change of one word, the acknowledgement that I may be gay and that the person asking was cool with that, I would have felt more comfortable. I always knew I had issues with coming out (and to some extent being out) at work but never to the extent that I now know I did.

Some people reading this might not really see the point in what I'm saying. I spoke to my new housemate who has always worked in London and he told me that he has never felt that anxiety about starting a new job. He's gay. He says that he's always worked with other gay people and that it's never been an issue for him. But not everyone works in London, or New York, or Sydney. When I came out at 21 my boss was gay and I think seeing someone in a position of authority whom everyone seemed to like made me feel hopeful that things might not be so bad if I came out. He definitely inspired me to take that step and I often wonder if I'd still be in the closet if he hadn't been my boss! You spend so much time at work it really does affect who you are and how you live your life - more than I ever thought it did. In the seven jobs I've had since then and previous to my role at Stonewall I have never worked with another gay, lesbian or bisexual colleague in my team. Well, not an out gay, lesbian or bisexual anyway. No wonder I had so many anxieties about coming out at work. In my experiences at work I was an anomaly, a minority. 


In my new job I'm just me.


Wayne Dhesi
@WayneDavid81


For more on coming out at work read this feature by the BBC's Simon Wright

It's often referred to as one of the last gay taboos in Britain - an out gay professional footballer. But why does a large proportion of the gay (and straight) media, as well as a large section of society in general, seem to be obsessed with the prospect of an out pro footballer? Why do some of us think that having an out and proud gay or bisexual footballer matters?

Many of us will already know the story of Justin Fashanu. As Britain's first £1million black footballer he had the sporting world at his feet when he transferred to Nottingham Forest in 1981. Fashanu didn't come out publicly until 1990 but his sexuality was no secret to those who knew him, including his manager at Nottingham Forest Brian Clough. In his biography Clough recounted a particularly frustrated exchanged he had with the player soon after his transfer to Forest:

It's not obvious from Clough's telling of the exchange whether or not he held particularly strong views about homosexuality but what is apparent is that whatever his views on being gay were, he wasn't making it particularly easy for Fashanu to come out. Of course this was over 20 years ago and indeed Fashanu did not come out for another nine years, after being approached by The Sun newspaper. It's not clear whether the stresses of hiding his sexuality affected his playing abilities, but the fact that Clough barred Fashanu from training with the side once he found out he was gay gives us a fair idea that it might have played a role. Common sense would suggest that someone who can be themselves at work without fear of rejection or abuse would be happier and more productive.

Last September Clarke Carlise, the Chairman of the Professional Footballer's Association and a Northampton Town defender, told a sport's magazine that he had spoken to eight gay professional footballers who told him they were afraid to come out. Seven of the eight players cited a fear of fan and media backlash as one of the reasons they had chosen to only come out to those close to them and not in public. It's impossible to say whether or not there were any closeted gay players when Justin Fashanu came out but knowing that there are at least eight now may suggest that rather than following society's progressive attitude towards diversity and inclusion, football has actually taken steps backwards.

Chris is a self-confessed football fanatic. As well as playing for gay-friendly team Nottingham Ball Bois twice a week he also attends matches at both Nottingham and Derby with gay friends. Chris thinks that we do need out gay players but the clubs need to do more to impose FA regulations. "Some people seem to think going to a football game means they can leave any decency they have at the gates and scream whatever they like at the opposing team", he says.  "The clubs are getting better at imposing the FA regulations but often abuse is just ignored. Racial abuse has had to be dealt with; players can't hide the colour of their skin. If some players were openly gay the clubs would have to act in the same way when homophobic abuse occurs."

One of the biggest factors that make the whole idea of an out gay footballer in 2013 so interesting is the unknown reaction that person would receive - from fans, team mates and the media. There's no question that society has moved on in its acceptance of  gay people since Justin Fashanu was 'encouraged' to come out by The Sun newspaper but how big has that movement in Britain really been? Being gay is still seen as a subject worthy of a tabloid story, gay teens are still committing suicide because they are getting bullied at school and marriage equality is only now being debated. Are we just foolish to think that a sport that still has to encourage clubs to combat racist abuse from fans will welcome a gay player with applause and a pat on the back? 

No matter how positive the reaction from fans will be when a player does take that brave step, it's naive to think that verbal abuse, of any nature, will be completely eradicated from the sport. All players face taunts and insults - for being black, for missing penalties or for simply being unpopular. There has to be a certain amount of 'taking it on the chin' and to think otherwise would be too idealistic. We all remember what we were told at school about name calling - sticks and stones make break my bones but words will never hurt me. But when that name calling crosses the line and becomes damaging then something has to be done. When fans shout to David Beckham that they hope his kids get cancer then something has to be done. When fans throw bananas on the pitch at black players then something has to be done. Footballers are employees of the club they are playing for and in any other job we would look to our employees to provide us with a safe working environment. The FA can't second guess the reaction to gay footballers but they can be proactive in setting up their stall now. 

The Football v Homophobia campaign is 'an international initiative opposing homophobia in football at all levels - from grassroots to professional clubs.' This year the campaign aimed to recruit as many teams (league and non-league) as possible, asking them to pledge their support for tackling homophobia in football. The scheme is heavily supported by the FA on their official website and yet three months after the campaign started only 55 teams have so far signed up. Some of the biggest teams in the country do not yet appear on the '150 Leaderboard' - you can see who has made the pledge and who hasn't by visiting the FA's website.

I find it disappointing that so many top flight clubs have yet to make their position known on homophobia in football. Surely it's a no-brainer; they should all be against it. They shouldn't even need to sign a pledge stating their position, but the fact that there is one and they haven't speaks volumes. Campaigns like Football v Homophobia are so important because they shine the spotlight on clubs and highlight the attitudes that exist with the culture of football at all levels. I think that supporters' associations have the same duty to stand up against homophobia (and racism in sport) and until we see a widespread climate of support it would be pretty naive to think that a player would ever feel comfortable coming out - and who could blame them?

Chris believes that we all have a responsibility to create a more inclusive game and that it's not just up to the FA. "Some people will say that those who shout insults aren't really football fans but will still sit by and allow them to keep chanting vile things without reporting them. It seems bizarre that in almost any other sport it doesn't seem to be an issue. We have openly gay athletes, rugby players and boxers."

The question of who should shoulder the responsibility is an interesting one. The clubs, the FA, the players, the fans and the government all have a part to play but it's impossible for things to change unless everyone is on board.

When we look at the political changes that have come about in regards to gay equality (equal age of consent, section 28 being abolished) it's easy to applaud our forward thinking nation but these changes in law do not always make the transition into everyday life and communities so smoothly or as timely.

When American soccer star Robbie Rogers (left) came out while at the same time retiring from the sport in 2013, he stated that it would be "impossible" for a footballer to come out and continue to play. 

The big question is whether or not we actually 'need' a footballer to come out. There's no doubt that taking that step is a very personal one and I think it would be wrong to pressure anyone to come out for any other reason than it being the right thing for them. However, this doesn't mean that I think society (and the gay community in particular) would not benefit. Of course they would. We know the old fashioned belief that gay people can't and don't wish to play sport is complete rubbish, but what we don't know is how many gay people play particular sports at a professional level. My point isn't that there should be a representation of gay people in each sport but if there is then great. My point is that if we KNOW there are at least eight gay footballers currently playing top flight football who are not comfortable coming out through fear of what the reactions would be, that is unacceptable. Anyone who has come out knows what this fear is like. Instead of worrying about the media response we may have worried about our friends' response. We haven't had to worry about the fans' response but we agonised over what our colleagues may say.

A lot of people find that the fears they have around coming out never actually materialise and that things are a lot easier than they assumed they would be. Maybe this will be the case in football too but surely there’s no harm in acting now to reduce this fear by being proactive by adopting an anti-homophobic stance.

It would be great for one of those eight players to bite that bullet and stand up to be counted. Fear can cripple us and is very often much worse than the thing we fear. The difference with fear of this nature is that we don't yet know the outcome and so we don't yet know if the fear is warranted. One thing is for sure, whoever decides to step up and step out will have the respect and appreciation of millions of people from around the world. Many will think that this is no big deal and to them it might not be, which is fine. But it is a big deal to many others and that's why sometimes some of us seem to be obsessed with gay footballers. If a gay player can't come out then how is an out gay youngster ever going to break into the sport?

I can't quite believe that it's been a whole year since I uploaded the first coming out stories, emailed to me by my friends, to this website - there are now over 150 from all around the world! I first had the idea for RUComingOut after meeting J, a 17 year old boy, in my job as a youth worker. I had worked with him since he was 15 and I was the first person he came out to. I felt a huge amount of responsibility to him and wanted to make sure I gave him as much support as I could. 

I knew I was gay when I was about 15 I think, but didn't come out for another six years. During those years I felt pretty lost to be honest. I didn't feel I really belonged anywhere. I wasn't straight, I knew that, but I didn't consider myself as gay either because I wasn't out yet. I wanted to try and do all I could to help J to understand that he didn't need to be as scared as he was about telling people he was gay. I wrote down my experiences of coming out and gave them to J to read. I asked my friends if they could write their stories down and they did. 

Suddenly, and simply, J felt a little bit more comfortable with his future. He realised that he would have to tell people but that he was under no pressure to do it a particular way. More importantly, he realised that every happy, secure gay man or woman had to go through that difficult and often emotionally frought period to become who they are. 

The website was not the first concept for the project. The idea for a book that could be sent to colleges and school libraries came after a conversation with my friend Shelley. I took to Twitter and Facebook and the stories came flooding in. Once I realised that there were many more people willing to share their stories than I had expected, the website seemed like an obvious thing to do and so after a few lessons in web design from my friend Yog, RUComingOut.com was born in March 2012.

There are far too many people and organisations to thank but I have to mention attitude magazine who, as well as supporting the first birthday event which takes place next week, they got behind the project really early on. 

The feedback I have received and the comments I see underneath the stories on the site confirm that this project is helping people. I've always said that there is no rule book to coming out but if someone somewhere reads just one sentence in one story that they connect with, then there's a chance we've made a difference to their life.

I have big plans for RUComingOut and with your continued support I know that they will be realised. If you have any ideas, suggestions or want to write a feature for the website please get in touch with me. If you have lots of money and you're not sure what to do with it, then again, please contact me and maybe I can convince you to become a corporate sponsor for the site. 

I received an email this week and although I have taken the name of the send off, I would like to share it with you. I've changed the odd detail to protect the senders identity as he is still very much on his coming out journey.

Hi there, 

I just wanted to thank you. Since I sent you my story I have received a lot of support and really kind words from everyone. It filled me with new confidence and appreciation of myself (something I never thought I could do).

This website has helped me in ways I never thought possible and I truly believe it is the best resource for gay people on the Internet. Just sitting and reading other people's stories make me feel like I'm not alone in this world and that there is a huge community of people that are truly special in ways that they may not even realise.

We really have made a difference, so thank you!

Wayne X

Founder
@WayneDavid81

"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."

What does this Bible quote mean? To some it would suggest that God is clearly acknowledging homosexuals and even going one step further and encouraging their acceptance. To others it clearly refers to those who are born unable to produce children. Unfortunately Jesus does not have Twitter so we can't ask him exactly what he meant in his statement. I'm being flippant, of course I am, but only for the purpose of highlighting the huge difference in society from the time of Jesus to the time we live in now. I've always been fascinated by Faith and how millions of people around the world live their lives based on the teachings of one man who lived over 2,000 years ago. From my History and Religious Studies lessons at school, I do believe that there was a man called Jesus and he did travel around speaking to the masses trying to encourage them to lead decent lives. Was He the Son of God? I don't know. Does anyone know? I'd argue that they don't. I understand that many many people 'believe' that Jesus was the Son of God but that is different to 'knowing' something surely? Well that's where Faith comes in.

To a non religious person Faith could be seen as illogical. It suggests a blind will to dismiss common sense, logic and reason. To those who have Faith this suggestion would be rather insulting. People with Faith are simply enlightened, unlike those without it. The Bible itself says that Faith is, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  (Hebrews 11)

In Christianity, Faith is not concerned with obedience to a given set of rules; it is about learning God's teachings and understanding what those teachings mean to the individual. Clearly the Bible plays a huge role in this process which is why I opened this essay with a quote. It's a rather important quote in my opinion as it offers an insight into Jesus' teachings on homosexuality (depending on your interpretation of it). More than 2,000 years have passed since Jesus was born and society and culture has changed beyond comprehension since then. Clearly, some fundamental aspects of society haven't changed but the world in which we live in now is very different to the world that surrounded Jesus.

I'm not going to quote the numerous passages from the Bible that are often used to back up arguments that suggest hypocrisy in religion. You know, the one about not having sex with your wife if she is on her period or the one that says an adulterous man should be put to death. They are there though and sometimes are written so clearly and explicitly that it seems impossible to interpret them in any other way. So why don't those who insist that the Bible teaches against homosexuality also insist that these teachings are also upheld in our modern world? Well society would not allow it. Our attitudes have changed. There was a time when women were drowned for being accused of practising witchcraft. How ludicrous would it be for us to suggest we bring back that practice? Completely ludicrous.

I know that there will be those who are reading this now who feel that as a non-Christian I simply do not understand what I'm talking about because I do not understand God. Well I don't really care what these people think to be honest. I respect everyone's right to believe in what they want to but as soon as those beliefs (and that's all they are, beliefs) start to impact on my life and the lives of millions of other LGBT people around the world, that's when I adopt the 'I don't really care' stance. I'm a polite person, I'm a caring person and I believe that I live my life in a good way, always looking out for others and trying to make the right choices. I was born gay (there's no debate here so let's not even entertain the idea) and I choose to act on those feelings of same sex attraction, something that others may see as a sin.

The thing is I know that I live my life trying to do the best I can for my self and those in it. If God exists in a form that enables Him to judge, punish or reward, then I'm pretty confident that I'll be OK thank you. I think that life is not about what you believe or preach or challenge but about what you do. Those who use religion to mask sexism or homophobia have missed the point. If God exists in the form I mentioned then surely don't you think that he may be setting us challenges every day to test our own morals, standards and ability to show love to one another? I do. Maybe some of those passages in the Bible are examples of that; curve balls to test our ability to think on our own and make decisions based on what we feel not what we are told. He gave us the ability to question; maybe we should use it more than we do.

I always knew that this essay wouldn't be specific, tidy or particularly focused because of the nature of its subject. What I wanted to do was to simply lay out my stall and try to explain how I see my place in this world, a world where millions of people worship different Gods and have different beliefs. A world where millions of people have died and suffered in the name of religion, arguably doing what they felt God was asking them to do. It's not about being right and it's not about being wrong. Life is about doing what you think is right for you and those who you love. It's not about pleasing any Gods that may or not exist in various guises, it's about learning and growing and challenging your own ideals to ensure that you live a life that you would be happy with when it's all over.

I don't need a book to tell me how to do that but I understand that others do. I think some of the stories in the Bible are amazing and teach us so much about how we should treat our fellow human beings but surely life isn't about doing what we're told. That would be far too easy. It's about doing what we feel is right and there's a difference.

Jesus was born in a stable. When I visited the Vatican a few years ago I was astonished at the riches that were seemingly being hoarded and also displayed to the visitors. I'm sure the Pope loves to look at all of the shiny things but is that really what Jesus taught people was important? I'm no expert, but based on what I was taught in school I actually think Jesus would be pretty disgusted at the obsession with material wealth the Catholic Church seem to have. But what do I know?

I just hope that as human beings we all continue to question what we're taught and look inside ourselves for the answers, not to simply do what other people tell us to. If you're really and truly against marriage equality then maybe spend a bit of time thinking about what your views on divorce are. If you believe that being gay is just fundamentally wrong then maybe you should question why you think it is. Is it because you think that's what you should believe or is it because the idea of two men kissing and sleeping together makes you feel a bit sick. Be honest. I have straight mates who have no issue with me being gay but we don't talk about the physical aspect because it's not something they feel comfortable doing. Does this bother me? Not at all. I don't particularly want to hear about their heterosexual exploits! But I appreciate their honesty. The fact that we have different ideas of what is 'normal' in our sex lives doesn't mean that we can't be friends.

It would be impossible to live your life as the Bible suggests in every way possible in 2013. If it's necessary to adapt, pick and choose these aspects to fit life in 2013, then all I hope is that people don't let their closed-minded attitudes dictate which parts of the scripture they choose to ignore and which they choose to follow.

As always I encourage and look forward to your comments!

Wayne Dhesi
@WayneDavid81
@rucomingout

Read past blog entries by clicking here . . .

In the Sunday Times last weekend, gay Hollywood actor Rupert Everett said that he, "...couldn't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads." Now I just want to say now that this blog entry isn't going to be concerned with trying to pointlessly destroy Everett's character or beating down his comment with aggressive gay defense talk. However, Everett's comments did bring the debate about gay parenting back into the public sphere again and so I thought it would give me the ideal opportunity to stick my oar in! So here goes.

An important thing to note is that Everett wasn't misquoted. He went on TV to defend his views this week where he said, "I’m not against anybody doing anything. I think the reason that’s great about living in England, is we can do more or less what we want. Just I, personally, feel like that. But it doesn’t mean to say,…I have lots of gay friends with children, I have lots of gay friends who have got married, I’ve been to lots of gay weddings, but I’m not big into marriage straight or gay to be honest."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as I said earlier, this blog isn't really about Everett, it's about his view; a view that is shared by many people around the world. A view, that for many reasons, I feel is ignorant and quite offensive to gay parents and children of gay parents.

In 2011 the number of children in care in England increased from 64,400 to 65,520 from the previous year. The majority of these children were living with foster parents, but almost 8,000 were in some kind of residential care. Now I'm not sure if you're shocked by those figures or not. I can't really say what my guess would have been before seeing those numbers to be honest but whichever way you look at it, it's pretty clear to me that there are a lot of children in England (and throughout the rest of the world) who are growing up outside of a loving home with a family who take care of them, love them, ecourage them and ultimately shape their futures.

There are various reasons why children are taken into care, but shockingly out of those 65,520 children who were living in care during 2011 in England, 40,410 were doing so because of family neglect or abuse in their family home. A further 8,930 were in care due to 'family dysfunction'. I couldn't find figures that broke down how many of these families were headed by gay parents but my assumption (and I'm open to discussion about this) is that most of them didn't. I base that assumption on the sheer number of 'traditional' families with straight parents than those with gay parents. I guess it doesn't really matter, my point isn't that straight parents are worse than gay parents, that would be ridiculous. My point is that there are many parents who for whatever reason, are unable to care for their own children, so much so that a huge amount are removed from the family home and placed in care homes and residential units.

I have friends, a couple who adopted their daughter and they do a great job looking after her, loving her and showing her right from wrong. It took them two and a half years from their first communication with the adoption agency to the point at which they were given custody of their daughter and this time was filled with interviews, observations and judgements being made as to whether they would make good parents. They obviously passed the relevant tests and it was decided that they were suitable to take care of a child. My friends are a straight couple by the way. No one could disagree that this little girl is better off in their care, growing up in a loving and caring home. So then, what if my friends were gay? What if they were two men? Again, I suggest that the little girl's home with her two dads would be a much more stable environment for her to grow up in rather than a care home. "But she won't have a mum", some people will say. "The poor thing will get bullied at school", others will claim. 

The fact of the matter is that the little girl, if adopted by two gay men who were in a loving, stable relationship, who had passed all the same tests as any couple going through the process, would be growing up in a safe, nuturing home rather than an under-funded, resource-stretched care home with no mother OR father figure to speak of. As for the bullying at school issue - children get bullied for having the wrong trainers, it doesn't mean we should ban cheap brands of footwear does it? In my experience as a youth worker, schools want to do their best to stamp out any kind of bullying and so the reason for the bullying is not really important. We can't deny a child a loving home just in case some of their classmates may have an issue with it years down ther line.

I would hope that the majority of you would agree that a child placed in a loving home with gay parents would be emotionally better off than if they were to be raised in the care system. If you don't then I'm happy to hear your argument. There's a comments box underneath for a reason! However, this brings me on to the crux of the entire debate I guess - Is having gay parents worse than having both a mum and a dad? The answer? It depends on the parents. It's as simple as that. I could use the argument that most gay dads or gay mums who have kids would have made the conscious decision to do so which would suggest that the child would be wanted. But it's not always the case that unwanted pregnancies in straight couples produce unloved children. I could use the argument that in my job I've met some truly awful mothers and fathers who beat their kids, abuse them and show not an ounce of love towards them; straight mothers and fathers. But we know these parents exist. I could start talking about children who grow up in single parent families without a mum or dad and play devil's advocate in suggesting that these children will somehow grow up damaged due to having an absent parent. I find this suggestion offensive. I know many single parents who make it their life's goal to give their kids a good life and the lack of a second parent does nothing to shake that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who share Rupert Everett's view that children being brought up in families with same sex parents are somehow predisposed to a less enriching life than those in a 'traditional' family, should stop and consider what it is their suggesting. 

In an ideal world Dad wouldn't take heroin in front of his kids. 
In an ideal world Mum wouldn't be an alcoholic and forget to pick her kids up from school.
In an ideal world Dad wouldn't beat the crap out of Mum with the kids listening from upstairs.
In an ideal world Dad wouldn't have an affair and leave Mum to raise their kids on her own.
In an ideal world Mum wouldn't die of cancer leaving dad to raise his three young daughters.

We don't live in an ideal world Rupert, we live in the real world where bad shit happens. Having both a mother and a father isn't a magical recipe for a golden childhood, it can be, but that's dependant on the quality of the parenting, the love they have for their children and the relationships they work on forging with their children.

Parents should be judged on their parenting not on their sexuality. Kids are tougher than we give them credit for sometimes but one thing I'm certain of - I'd much rather have two dads who wanted me, loved me and worked two and half years to prove to some strangers they could care for me, than a mum and a dad whose lives I was simply a part of.

Wayne Dhesi
Founder of RUCOMINGOUT


Figures taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15091270

Read about Rupert Everett's comments on gaystarnews http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/rupert-everett-defends-controversial-comments-gay-parents190912




 







.

Today I was asked to contribute a short piece of writing about my feelings on gay marriage or 'marriage equality' as I would rather call it.  It took me a few false starts before I found my flow and I soon realised that this was because I was thinking about my argument far too much. It's actually pretty simple. 

Here's what I wrote:

I've been to two weddings this year and I will have been to another two before 2012 is out.  That's what happens when you hit 30; all of your friends get married!

I'm not married but I do have a boyfriend of three years. Do I want to get married? Not at the moment, no. Do I want to have the option to get married one day?  Of course I do. Who wouldn't want to have the option? At the moment in this country I am not able to get married.  I can however have a civil partnership. The entire debate surounding 'gay marriage' is one of definition. Some religious groups are fighting to protect the term marriage to mean a  union of a man and a woman.  They claim to 'own' the term and suggest that altering it's definition to include same sex couples would basically undo years of tradition and simply cannot happen.  I disagree. Straight couples who do not wish to marry in a religious ceremony can have a civil marriage.  Gay couples can have a similar ceremony however it is not to be called a civil marriage but a civil union or civil partnership.  Why the difference?

The philosopher Confucius was born in ancient China in 551BC.  His definition of marriage goes like this, 'Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.'

Over half a century before the birth of Jesus, we see a definition of marriage with a clear absence of genders. I'd prefer to refer to this definition of marriage if that's ok.  There is no mention of God but of a spirituality and repsect for our land. 

The Church did such a good job in claiming marriage as their own and shaping it to fit their own values and agendas that as a society we have come to believe that the word itself is steeped in religion, when it simply isn't.

Many people argue that gay people are being awkward and simply stoking the fires.  After all, we can get civil patnered which gives us the same legal rights as straight married couples so why the persistance? The point is this. Just because I don't want to get married now, it doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to. The word 'marriage' does not belong to anyone, just look in the history books.  Times change and so do mankind's attitudes and just because some things are traditional it does not mean that they should not change over time.  It used to be traditional to drown women accused of witchcraft; it isn't now because that's ridiculous.

There are many arguments against gay marriage, none of which have any real substance. If indeed marriage is just a word, then allow us, the gays and lesbians of the UK, to use it too. No one likes being left out do they?

"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself"*

*(Sound familiar? Well that was also Confucius by the way)