sapiens to be homo

Transport for London have intervened to block advertisements promoting ‘gay conversions’ that were due to run on the side of London’s buses next week.

The adverts were part of a campaign by fundamentalist Christians to promote ‘reparative therapy’ which they believe can ‘cure’ people of homosexuality.

One thing about the gay gene conjecture I don’t like is that it makes for weedy politics. The essential proposition is ‘don’t blame me, I can’t help it’. It is, I suppose, suitable for a movement which now aspires to nothing more radical than the right to get married like everyone else.

There’s clearly no obligation on anyone to be any more radical than they actually are just because they ride the other bus, and, if female, get off at Hebden Bridge. On the other hand, this is one of those occasions when a bit of radical vim and vigour might do some good because it’s one of those issues where more speech could be the answer. Let the evangelicals put their ads on buses. And let the gays go unto the lamaseries of the evangelicals and proseletize under the slogan ‘we’re gay because we want to be and it’s fucking great’ or something equally suave, and perhaps hand out illustrated leaflets. By the time the dust settled I bet you’d have far more transfers from the Jesus column to Sodom than vice versa.

Comments

[nick s]

Let the evangelicals put their ads on buses.

I doubt they were even intending to do that: they had 100 spots booked, and now they don't have to pay for them. Excellent trolling on their part.

it’s one of those issues where more speech could be the answer

Er, no. It's taken a long while for homosexualists to distinguish themselves in the public sphere from predatory kiddie-fiddlers, and there's not a huge leap in that context from "we're gay by choice" to "we're recruiting your kids".

[Barry Freed]

homosexualists? That makes it sound like an ideology and I'm not sure that word choice supports the rest of your argument.

[jamie]

Nick: them days ain't no more. Cameron could get a gay marriage bill, for instance, through parliament very easily, because the opposition would vote solidly for it, apart from Labour's remaining social Catholics and the DUP. His problem is with elements in his own party. We've reached the stage where aggressive marketing is an entirely legitimate option.

Barry: 'Homosexualist' is Private Eye's way of mocking people who thought gayness was/is an agenda, and being Private Eye, also of mocking gay rights activists. Them public schoolboys swing both ways.

[Barry Freed]

Ah, thanks for that. (I think I mentioned here before that I once had a subscription to Private Eye that was a gift from an old English friend of my now ex-wife's but that was a very long time ago.)

[dsquared]

Presumably due to having got their act together a bit quicker than the evangelicals, Stonewall's retort ads ("Some People Are Gay, Get Over It") are already up on the (I think) C2 route. They're definitely reactions - in the same font as the refused ad and everything.

[nick s]

His problem is with elements in his own party.

And the Daily Mail, but I repeat myself.

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/p/548969/7243763.aspx

[TheMrBibby]

@dsquared I think it's the other way around - the banned ads were the reaction to the Stonewall ones which have been on buses around Paddington for a week or two already.