Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

Why is someone being gay a story? Unless their sexual preference had some significant role in their lives, what they achieved, what they stood for or that they were mistreated for the relationships they had, where's the story?

This man was a poet, squire and considered to be a pillar of Norfolk society. What significance does his gayness have? It doesn't. It makes no difference to those viewing his former home that he was gay.

Anne Bolyen was executed for her supposed extra marital affairs and for supposedly speaking of the death of the King which was treason. Elizabeth the 1st, the 'virgin queen', well it's obvious why any details of her private life can be regarded as being of historical importance.

He was gay; a 3 word story.

He couldn't, grumppa. It was illegal.

Yes he could have campaigned within the law, and he could have welcomed gays discreetly. Perhaps he did!

Good points, Smileless!

But some people might think it's still important to let people see that a gay person could also be a "pillar of... society." There's still some anti-gay prejudice out there, sadly, so NT might have thought it was important to show this.

Generally speaking, however, I don't think a person's sexuality is the main part of who they are. For some, it may be a major part, but for others, not so much.

I'm torn about the lanyards situation, Imperfect. I can see where those dealing with the public may be asked to show that they accept a broad spectrum of people. Otoh, it's kind of ironic, as if those who have some doubts about the "gay pride" movement have to be "kept in the closet!"

Meanwhile, I'm so sorry for the hurt you went through at the hands of your xh. You would probably have been just as hurt if he left you for another woman, though, maybe more. (((Hugs)))

There is no proof of the affairs Anne Boleyn was accused of Smileless2012 so arguably you are maligning her by suggesting she had them. Elisabeth 1 has been said to have been a man, linked with several men and said to have had a child. All stories about their sexuality for which there is little or no evidence, yet people are happy to repeat them. But someone for whom there is real proof of their sexuality can't be talked about- isn't that double standards?

I'm not maligning Boleyn trisher which was why I referred to her supposed misdemeanors. My point is any discussion regarding their private lives can be regarded as being of historical importance because it impacted on their lives and in Boleyn's case her death.

I very much doubt Elizabeth the 1st would ever have seriously been said to have been a man bearing in mind that at that time a King was preferable to a Queen.

What real proof is there? Have lovers come forward with photographs ? if he kept his sexuality private

Generally speaking, however, I don't think a person's sexuality is the main part of who they are.
That is what I was trying to say too, Starlady. He was a much respected public figure, Lord Lieutenant I believe and obviously beloved of all his god-children too. His - anyone's - sexuality is part of who he or they are but in his case the NT has made it the main part of who he is and it is not.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\i


In what seems like an attempt to demonstrate their open-mindedness, which doesn't extend to their volunteers...

In the era in which he lived coming to terms with his sexuality must have caused him some anguish. He loved and was beloved by his grandchildren but had to accept that he would never have a family life and children of his own. Because of the law any man he loved would have to be hidden away. He would always have lived with fear of being exposed, ridiculed, rejected, imprisoned, committed to a mental institution.
He could have become a bitter and angry man or a recluse. But he swallowed what must have been a bitter pill, "why me?" .and lived a generous and successful life. For that I think we should honour him. But I don't think that's really possible unless we know the circumstances of his life and what his struggles would have been. I wish the volunteers could have shown an equal spirit.

He was the last in his direct line. His brother died in the war and he was childless. Choosing to leave your home to the NT rather than another family member, is no indication on how close he was to them. Other members of the family may have been only too glad he didn't leave it to them and he may well have consulted them before doing so. Nobody knows.

Trisher, nobody has suggested that the story should not be told, merely that it should not have been told the in the way the NT chose to do it.

Grumppa I entirely agree with you. I notice that those that voted 'leave were more likely than any other group to think this way and, as we know everyone over 65 voted 'leave' the figures disapproving of homosexuality will go down rapidly as we all keel over and are put to bed with a shovel.

I pointed out on another thread, those who think that the NT volunteers should have toed the line and adhered to the rigid diktat of the NT have very similar views to the posters who believe that requisitioning vacant property by the State to house the homeless is a good idea.

I am not criticising, merely pondering the correlation between the two ideas.

I suppose, because I voted Remain, I am exempt from criticism

Except that I have made it emphatically clear that I do not think the NT was right to try to make its volunteers where this lanyard, but I do think that local authorities should be able to requisition properties that have been empty for a prolonged period.

Oh, and I also voted remain!

Ha! A dissident to my theory!!

or 'of'

dj it was not illegal to stand up for gay rights. How else did the 1967 Act get on the statute book? Nor was it illegal for him to make his house a haven for gay men, had he so chosen. It was the practice of homosexuality that was illegal. Not being homosexual.

But if he didn't want people other than close friends to know he was homosexual he wouldn't have done either of those, particularly in his position.

The legality or illegality is not what mattered most, it was the stigma attached to it. It is unlikely that he would have been able to hold the positions he did if he had openly spoken of being gay. His life would have changed drastically. He had a copy of the Wolfenden Report and possibly he gave evidence to them, but without being identified. It seems all the more tragic to me that he was so committed to public service and yet unable to speak of his real feelings. It is something a number of older gay men, particularly those in the caring professions will identify with and yet another reason why his story should be told.

Sorry Mnica but that's not so. One case as an example. The Horsfall case. In Bolton 8 men were arrested for having each other's addresses in their address books. There had been no acts amongst them, needed some of the eighth ad never met in person. The "ringleader" was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment,, the others given lesser convictions. I'm not being critical but I think it's important we are accurate.

Indeed not needed. typos sorry

Is there no longer freedom of speech ?

Why do we all have to be of one mind?

It is fine by me that anyone who is gay should expect equal rights and to get treated fairly.

It is also fine by me that People like Tim Farron (if that was his name) can voice their religious opinion on homosexuality.

I am fine that some people are vegan and some are not.

I am however fed up with being told what I should believe, I will make up my own mind.

How can you make your own mind up if you are not given the information in the first place?

Gays were not locked in mental institutions in the sixties

"Like thousands in the Sixties, I lived in fear of being outed. When my mother found out, she took it really badly. So I went to the doctor reluctantly, who advised me there was a cure and assured me it would work.

At the time, some of the medical profession were convinced, because of their god-like ability (I say that with tongue in cheek), they could cure freaks, as some would call us.

Same-sex relationships in those days in this country were seen as abhorrent.

The cure was like torture, something Hitler would have used in the concentration camps.

My “cure” lasted 72 hours, before I could tolerate it no longer. I demanded to be released – after all, I had volunteered. I was scared that nobody knew where I was or under what name, but I was locked up in a mental institution. After all, how could the NHS treat me while it was illegal?

If I told you the story about what the psychiatrist had done to me with aversion therapy and electrodes on my private parts, you would not believe it could be done in the name of medicine.

I never spoke about it for years. What made it worse was that, two months later, I found out that the psychiatrist who treated me was himself a homosexual. He must have loved watching me being tortured.

I’ve done several programmes about what happened to me all those years ago, to maybe help others. But a programme that I’ve just been involved in is very special.

An amazing programme-maker, Fergus O’Brien, who has a wonderful pedigree for making award-winning TV, approached me to play a very small part in Against The Law, which will be shown on BBC2, at 9pm, on July 26.

It stars Daniel Mays, who plays Peter Wildeblood, and it’s about the infamous Montague Trial."

Really, Annie?
Tell that to this man.

Correct Anniebach .

Isn't it possible that NanKate has been "given the information" she needs to have made her decision, even if the source of that information wasn't from you durham?

Annie is not correct. Gays were locked up in mental institutions in the sixties.

The quotation I put on to show you she is not correct is by a man who works for Liverpool radio. He was locked up in a mental institution for being gay in the sixties.
I presume you think he is lying?

I don't care how Nankate got her information. She must have got it from somewhere to make her mind up. I didn't think she was getting at me when she said that.
It's just obvious that you have to be told by someone in order to make your mind up.

Your posts are getting a bit ridiculous, Chewbacca.
I can't imagine you are watching BBC2 at the moment?
No, you don't need to be told about it. It seeps in by osmosis.