Anthony

I think you are rather unlucky in the USA. It seems that your politicians have to conform and so have to pretend their opinions are like those of the majority. Here in the UK it isn't like that. My MP is gay and 'out'. Most MP's are in favour of at least civil partnership. It's mostly the religious nuts that are opposed. The cardinals and bishops. On the other hand your schools seem commonly to have GSAs and to be a lot more tolerant - and of course you have an openly gay bishop! Here the Archbishop chickened out of appointing a gay man to be a bishop even though the man concerned asserts that he is celibate (which Gene Robinson certainly isn't). But we are getting more like you. All parties say they want less taxation. All party leaders pay lip service to religion (or worse, are sincerely believers). And our press doesn't help. Our popular press is national so when they get thier knife into someone it affects voting nationwide. Most of it is very right-wing - authoritarian, in favour of more draconian punishment, private enterprise and selfishness rule the roost.

Dear Des, I didn't know things in Oz were so bad. You sign: Call me naive if you want, but life without trust in the goodness of others would be intolerable. Amen to that.

Sorry about that, Funtails, You wrote: Here it is again: How hard has it been to stay faithful to your wife? Back before, when I was religous, I had pretty much resigned myself to marrying a woman. I figured that the mere physical closeness of sex would be enough of a turn on that I'd be able to um perform when needed but, that if I had to, I'd fantasize about guys when I had sex with her so I could get it up. ANy thoughts on this area? Well not really hard at all. We agreed that we would stay together - no foreign assignments etc and that if we were forced to be apart for more than a week or two we would forgive each other for succumbing to temptation (if we did!). But we never did have to part for more than a week and we are still both faithful. And I am one of those peculiar people who never did fantasize. The here and now of my own response to my own hand was enough for me. And I only ever had one wet dream in my life and it was about the guy I was in love with but it was unreqiuited and it was six years before I met my wife. Nor did I have any difficulty about getting it up until a few years ago when I began to suffer from erectile dysfunction. And although I say I am 90% gay she says I must be bi because the sex we have had between us has been very satisfactory for both of us. So it wasn't a question of 'having to perform' I have always liked sex with her. I think it wouldn't have worked if I didn't like it. But as my daughter said "If Sylvia died you wouldn't be looking for another woman would you? It would be a man." and she is quite right.

Dear Funtails, You wrote: And my question, Anthony? I wasn't intentionally ducking the question. I'm 73 and really don't know what sort of pressures young gay guys feel. I guess I have to answer how I think I would if I were young. I wasn't happy with promiscuity even when I was promiscuous. I would always have been looking for a lifelong partner and when I found one I would want it to be a partnership that society would recognise and approve of so I would probably want to get married (or a civil partnership or whatever). But, on the other hand, I have a daughter with a long term partner and children of 12 and 9 who refuses to get married because the first time she got married it changed her relationship so much for the worse. Maybe I would feel like that. I don't know. But if it had to be a church wedding I'd certainly never do it.

Dear Drewbie, I didn't say "let him go". I said the purpose of the system is wrong and I hope I implied that the purpose ought to be to persuade (convince? educate? ) the criminal not to do it again. And I didn't say there should be no deterrent. I'm in favour of deterring people who are on the way to doing bad things but I'm not in favour of revenge. When it comes to discussions about what to do about crime, the unthinking answer given by the worst newspapers is always to increase the punishment. That ignores the reason most people break the law which is that they can do so and get away with it. They don't get caught. If all lawbreaking was followed immediately by the legal punishment a great many laws would have to be changed urgently because it would be seen that they are unjust or stupid. Many prescribed punishments are much too severe. You wrote: So what should we do, just give him a pat on the back and let him go? I reply, of course not. You wrote: And the school part sorry I don't think schools are the only thing that can make society great, schools can only do so much, Agree schools probably didn't do enough, just because he gets punished or someone steps in doesn't mean he wouldn't kill Lawrence I reply that I didn't say the ONLY thing. I'm a parent myself and think and say that the most important thing anyone ever does is bring up children. The reason I mention schools is because they are provided by society as a whole and could be well designed to bring a good influence on their pupils. This would do some good. Putting people in prison and throwing away the key does harm and is also VERY expensive. You wrote: And then how many years should go in for?, some say he should just get help, then what kind of place then, would he be able to go wherever he wanted? Not quite sure he should be tried as an adult, not the same what jakob was saying. What jakob said after he does get out though, I agree, he needs a job, plus a good environment. or the cycle starts again, not saying he would kill again, but "criminal" I reply that it looks as if you are not certain you want to treat a teenager as harshly as a forty-year old and that you don't rule out the idea that when the criminal comes out of prison something should be done to help him 'go straight' (so, in my book you aren't a totally lost cause;-) And you may want to agree to disagree with me, but I don't want to disagree with you: I want to persuade you that what I say is sense and if I fail I want to be persuaded that I should change my opinion to yours. And in this respect I think the main danger is 'faith', which gives people the excuse they need to refuse to listen to what other people say. Do I need to explain why? Love, Anthony PS I've never been in prison so I didn't need to be 'straight' when I came out! [i came out as bent.]

What is the purpose of the system? It seems to me that the main purpose is to take revenge and I think that is wrong. It ought to be to bring the offender to realise that what they did was unacceptable and to persuade them to want not to do that any more. Then if they are let out of prison the rest of us will be in no danger. At present the way people are treated in jail is very unlikely to enable them to come out able to live without crime. In prison they are more likely to learn how to be a career criminal. And to acquire a grudge against society that they want to take revenge about. It costs a great deal more to keep someone in prison that it does to send them to the best private school there is. If our schools were all at that standard we would have far fewer criminals. Most people in prisons have somehow missed out on their education and, as drop-outs from society, have taken to crime and drugs as the only way to get by. It would be hugely cost-effective to improve our bad schools. Societies like the USA and UK that put people in prison and do almost nothing to help them 'go straight' when they get out are just making things worse and wasting taxpayers money. If all schools were good schools then we could (after a few years) close most of the prisons. Society would be richer, there would be less crime and a lot of people would not be miserable as victims of crime and in prison. Love, Anthony

Because I didn't know I was supposed to! But I will. Here's a big hug for you, Tanuki, And I'll give you more hugs and a beautiful meal with Champagne if you ever come to Bristol. As I've said before, you've done me a power of good and I owe you. Love, Anthony

Dear Blue, Only forty-ish eh? Lucky you. I'm 73. But I do really agree with almost all you say. I do want lgbt couples to have the same rights to long term partnerships as marriage gives for straight people, because I am sure that is what I would have wanted when I was young. But where would I have got the children? I mean Brew Maxwell's Foley-Mashburn stories are wish-fulfillment aren't they? The reason why society should give rights to stable partnerships is that they are the basis for raising children and there is nothing so important as raising children. It isn't getting married that matters it's having children. I have always liked children and always wanted to have my own and when I found a woman who would accept me in spite of my homosexuality I was very glad to get married and commit myself to it. And it worked! I have two daughters and they each have two children and so I have four grandchildren. I also have Sylvia and after 45 years together it does look as though it's till death does us part. But we are both fiercely atheist and no church blessed our union! But I was despairing at 28 of ever finding a long term partner and we both felt that the period from puberty to marriage was an extremely painful sexual desert - and quite unnecessarily so. So we made sure our daughters did not suffer from that. Indeed it was highly amusing when we went with our eldest to the family planning clinic to give her moral support to find that the staff there assumed we were there to oppose provision of the pill and condoms because she was only sixteen! In fact we were there to do our best to ensure she didn't get pregnant accidentally when we allowed her boyfriend to stay the night in her bed (which we were already doing)! And, in fact, neither daughter did get pregnant accidentally although both of them ditched their early partners and both got married and divorced before finding their current partners and having children. And both daughters appreciate what we did and both say they will do the same for their own children (whether the partners in question are of the same or different sexes. Oh! I didn't say, but I've never been in the closet as far as my close family are concerned. They all know I say I'm gay and Anna (aged 9) says I'm weird. Why doesn't everyone do this? I guess it is the effect of religion - whether the established CofE or of any other and of the ridiculous idea that what is good behaviour is defined by what god wants! Love, Anthony

Dear Des, You wrote: On the matter of rights, I don't think power enters into the equation until a person realises that they can exercise their rights. What we do have and have had for a long period of time are "Powers of Attorney" in two forms. 1. An enduring Power of Attorney and, 2. Medical Power of Attorney. However these documents do mean that my appointed Attorney under these documents does have the right to act on my behalf and if I have so written in them, the person will have first rights, granted by me to override medical procedures and other such things including hospital visiting rights, regardless of the hospital rules. Of course I expect someone again to question that statement, but that is my lawyer's opinion. I agree with you Anthony that many people do misuse the word 'rights,' but also I would point out in fairness that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is not an enforceable document even though it exists. Many times people will refer to this declaration as if it is an universally adopted set of rights. It isn't of course, but it does give people pause when you use it as I have in discussions to disarm those who have abandoned human dignity in the work place and business. Many people do not like being told they have acted in a way that is opposed to human rights even though such 'rights' cannot be legally enforced because they have not be recognised by the state in legislation. A country may be a signatory to the declaration, but not actually grant the rights to its citizens through legislation. [end of quote] The UN Declaration is exactly what I was complaining about - a sliding from what IS a right to what OUGHT to be. In the UK you have a right to a jury trial in some circumstances. It is because the law, the police and so on will support you to see that you get it that you have that right. When the UN declaration says you have a right, the chances are that if you live in Iraq or Myanmar or China or ... or ... you won't have that right because you won't get it unless the current despot in charge says you may. You may use it to support you in some civilised places like Oz, but try it in Rangoon or Shanghai and you would get short shrift! And, of course, it is even more confusing to mix up the matter of rights which are powers with the question of right and wrong behaviour. It is perfectly possible for people to have rights that are wrong. For example in some Muslim countries a man may divorce his wife by simply declaring that he isn't married to her any more. And because the law and society will support him if he does the fact is that it is a right. It won't be in any UN list though! In the UK you used to have the right to get out of jail if not charged after 24 hours inside. It was called habeas corpus after the wording of the writ which the authorities would support. Now all that some policeman has to do to keep you incommunicado and locked up for 28 days is to declare that you are a terrorist suspect! UK citizens no longer have the right to freedom. And this highly repressive and authoritarian government is trying to extend the period to 56 days! I used to think that Michael Howard was the worst and most reactionary Home Secretary since the war, but Jackie Smith is worse than he was! And even if the Conservatives are more liberal than the Labour party on some things they are so much worse on the other things that those of us who want Labour out can only vote for the Liberals and they will get a turn at power when the moon is blue! Rant over. But I am actually feeling pretty despairing about the way society is changing.

Dear Funtails, I'd be glad to tell you anything I can about my life. I'm now 73. I was predominantly homosexual from the time I left school till age 28 and then got married and had two daughters and... and... and But I told my wife I was homosexual before we got engaged and she still accepted me and we have been faithful to each other for 45 years so far. I think I'm 90% gay and 10% straight! Your wrote: I recently completed a short story that touches on the way older gay men got married to women back in the bad old days. [i'd love to read it. I'd make proper editing comments, if you let me.] (The story will be emailed to the Dude for posting when revisions and editing are done in a couple days time.) I would be interested to hear about how life as a married gay man was. [My wife would insist that I'm bi!] Are you out now to anyone in your family? [Yes, to all of them. And to a few friends. Grand-daughter Anna (aged 9) says I'm weird!] Of course, the bad old days are still with us in many ways. I have a 22 year old gay friend from a religious family who got married to a girl last year because he felt it was what he was supposed to do. Lately he's been hinting to me that he misses the gay side of life. I think he's contemplating stepping out on his wife. [Oh dear! Didn't he tell her? In my opinion he ought to come clean at once and depending how she takes it, separate or try to make a go of it. In my opinion to bring children into the world when you can't be reasonably sure you will be able to bring them up as you wish is a very immoral thing to do. BAD!!! But a partnership which begins with deception on one side has very little chance of long term success, don't you think? And not telling a wife that you are attracted sexually to men rather than women is quite terrible in my opinion.] That makes me think he is in a society that thinks women are and ought to be subservient to men and of lesser importance. That is another pernicious attitude that must be done away with. And in my opinion it is one that is supported mainly by religions of various kinds, all of which I abhor. Love, Anthony

Dear Funtails, I'd be glad to tell you anything I can about my life. I'm now 73. I was predominantly homosexual from the time I left school till age 28 and then got married and had two daughters and... and... and But I told my wife I was homosexual before we got engaged and she still accepted me and we have been faithful to each other for 45 years so far. I think I'm 90% gay and 10% straight! Your wrote: I recently completed a short story that touches on the way older gay men got married to women back in the bad old days. [i'd love to read it. I'd make proper editing comments, if you let me.] (The story will be emailed to the Dude for posting when revisions and editing are done in a couple days time.) I would be interested to hear about how life as a married gay man was. [My wife would insist that I'm bi!] Are you out now to anyone in your family? [Yes, to all of them. And to a few friends. Grand-daughter Anna (aged 9) says I'm weird!] Of course, the bad old days are still with us in many ways. I have a 22 year old gay friend from a religious family who got married to a girl last year because he felt it was what he was supposed to do. Lately he's been hinting to me that he misses the gay side of life. I think he's contemplating stepping out on his wife. [Oh dear! Didn't he tell her? In my opinion he ought to come clean at once and depending how she takes it separate or try to make a go of it. In my opinion to bring children into the world when you can't be reasonably sure you will be able to bring them up as you wish is a very immoral thing to do. BAD!!! But a partnership which begins with deception on one side has very little chance of long term success, don't you think? And not telling a wife that you are attracted sexually to men rather than women is quite terrible in my opinion.] That makes me think he is in a society that thinks women are and ought to be subservient to men and of lesser importance. That is another pernicious attitude that must be done away with. And in my opinion it is one that is supported mainly by religions of various kinds, all of which I abhor. Love, Anthony

Dear Des, You wrote: (My comments in brackets [].) There is much more than a single issue involved in this topic. [and how!!] If we divide the era of homosexuality into arbitrary acceptance - unacceptable periods, we end up with a clearer indication of attitudes by gay men of various ages. Those who lived through the period of homosexuality being a criminal offence and those who came after decriminalisation. [i did. All of my experience of sex with men was when it was illegal.] There is of course a middle group who knew both periods of time. [Yep - I knew it but by then I was married with an agreement that we would be faithful to each other.] So we can expect at least three different groups of reactions to gay marriage based on when people were born. As criminal offences were dropped at different times in different countries with some countries still to adopt this human right, we can see various age groups across the spectrum of time at various states of consideration on the topic of gay marriage. [Oops - this isn't a human right! It OUGHT to be but it isn't. Many states won't even support you to the extent that they will omit to enforce laws that put people in prison for homosexual acts - even though the whole civilised world agrees that such acts are perfectly acceptable.] Deciding to spend one's life with somebody is no small commitment. [it certainly is: and especially if children are to be brought up.] Pressure to do so, to marry, just because everyone else is doing it, is not a satisfactory reason to follow suit. [Agreed and doubled in spades.] The social issues then become even more involved if children are part of the marriage arrangement. [Yes!!! The most important thing anyone ever does is to bring up children, whether married or not.] Having said that, I am quite in favour of arranging one's life so that financial and responsible considerations are in the hands of my nearest and dearest. [Yes!! Of course one should be able to specify who has the right to visit one in hospital, make decisions for us when we go senile, benefit from tax breaks for legatees and so on.] End of quote I think it ought to be made clear that: A RIGHT IS A POWER! If you have rights to something it usually means the state will help you to get it. Getting married gives you rights but just being partners doesn't. For a gay couple to get the equivalent rights over each others affairs as a married couple there needs to be one of two things: either state support for marriage between any kind of partner or a special partnership that gives the same rights as marriage whatever it is called. If the state won't support you in visiting your unconscious partner that means you DON'T have visiting rights. And similarly with the many other things you OUGHT to have. People say that I have the right to ... ... when they mean that they OUGHT TO have that right but in fact they don't have it. The language of rights is widely misunderstood. Think about it! Love, Anthony

Well done, Aaron, I'll support you in this and hope you succeed in getting the British law applying to Grand Cayman enforced. The place is still in the dark ages! Quote Aaron Chandler, 23, and his boyfriend, both from on Amherst, Massachusetts, were holidaying with the boyfriend's sister and brother?in?law on the Caribbean island. The four had gone to the Royal Palms and joined about a dozen other couples who were dancing. At one point Chandler kissed his boyfriend. A patron approached the men and berated them. Endquote Love, Anthony

Funtails wrote: BTW, I'm 29. Am I a young gay or an old gay? Well, if you are old what am I at 73? No you are young beyond doubt. You know, I am so old that when I first read your question about whether young gays felt pressure to get married I thought that you meant get married to women! That was what the pressure was in my young days. And I did and when the law was changed in the UK to legalise homosexual acts between consenting adults (but only in pairs and behind locked doors!) I had two daughters. But the pressure I felt came from my parents and their friends and most of the people I knew and there was very little dissent. At that time no other lifestyle seemed possible. (Other lifestyles were possible, of course, as people liker Mike Soper show. I even know a couple of gay men who are still together that I introduced to each other in 1956! But they are extraordinary exceptions, I think. Nowadays there are so many variations on the way partnerships work that there just isn't anything like the pressure of fifty years ago. One of my daughters is married, the other not. Each has a settled partner and two children. I think the strongest pressure for the unmarried one to get married is from her daughters who like the idea of dressing up as bridesmaids! Now don't think I'm satisfied with how far it has gone. I still contribute to the Stonewall group that campaigns for homosexual law reform. And I do deplore the way some churches try to brainwash the children of their adherents - but then I would, wouldn't I? I'm a devout atheist like you and Des and many others on here. Love, Anthony

What I thought we were discussing was whether it would be right to use genetic manipulation, not whether it would be achievable. You wrote: Neither of the questions appeals to me as achievable. I think that shows you haven't got the matter straight. The fact that the selection of a single complement of genes from the two sets provided by the parents is (as far as we know) random doesn't make that somehow righter than a biased selection or a manipulated one. If something 'has always happened' or 'happens' naturally' that is not a reason to prefer that something over unnatural or new ways of doing things (or to prefer the unnatural or new). Now it IS possible to select by sex (and, by selective infanticide, it always has been) and the consequence has been that some societies, that value boys above girls, have now quite large sexual imbalances which may lead to a lot of men who are unable to find women partners. It will be interesting to see if homosexual behaviour becomes more common or acceptable there. I think that large biases in the balance between the sexes resulting from such selection (or from the wanton slaughter of the first world war) is bad for society, but as far as I know, no-one has ever made a plausible attempt to evaluate it or measure the difference between an unbalanced and a balanced sex ratio so as to give a reason for choosing one over another. I cannot tell whether my next grandchild will turn out to be a boy or a girl or heterosexual or homosexual or .... Nor can I tell whether fixing a characteristic will help to enable the child to be happier or not. I'm not even sure that happiness is the right thing to aim for. I don't think Mozart was very happy. Surely nearly everyone is as ignorant about these things as I am and surely no-one is in a position to lay down the law about what is right. If we don't know that something is wrong, why would we want to prohibit it? Love, Anthony

I too lived in various Victorian houses and still live in one (built 1872) and not one of them had central heating (not even working badly). The coldest of them didn't have running water or electricity either. I'd like to be warm but I can't give space to radiators which steal wall space and ought to be called 'convectors'. And I still think Alice spoke excellent English and some of Lewis Carrolls letters to little girls are as heartbreaking as anything I've read here. But I won't spell "can't" "ca'n't" as Carroll did. (As in "one ca'n't believe impossible things." - and do you know I just looked it up in a Wordsworth classics edition of Alice (complete and unabridged, it says) and they've changed Carroll's spelling!. Unabridged my foot. If leaving out Carroll's apostrophes isn't abridgement I'm a Dutchman! I had to go and check it in the Nonesuch edition (which I've done) and I'm right. He argued that ca'n't is short for cannot and the omitted 'n' is as worthy of an apostrophe as the omitted 'o'. And I suppose as Tragic Rabbits go to have an ordained clergyman of the C of E writing "one ca'n't believe impossible things" is pretty tragic. As you say over the pond: "Go figure!" Love, Anthony

Dear Tanuki, I'm one of those who likes your stories enough to write and say thank you. I hope to do it always, but sometimes I can't. For example I read an amazing story by Drake Hunter on the Mailcrew but can't find out how to write and thank him. Anyway the thing for all of us to do is encourage everyone that reads and likes a story to write to the author and say thank you. Love, Anthony

I find the blue on black of the examples impossible to read unless I highlight it. Then I can't see when the colour changes. I think I would like to try editing, but so far haven't found an author who wants to try me out. Furthermore I've been timid and have scarcely ventured beyond correcting typos or grammar. (BTW 'edited' and 'editing' have only one 't' each!) My experience is largely with translation - I've helped Matt & Andrej Koymasky with three of their stories. But I think that a story editor should leave that mundane stuff for a second stage and begin by reading through for things about the way the story is told that ought to be improved (people being surprised on one page about something they knew two pages back, for example). Actually there are far more subtle things to suggest and I wonder if you agree that such stuff should be done before the typo correction. If the sequence of events being told has to be changed the effort in dotting 'i's and crossing 't's for the part to be rewritten is largely a waste. Is it normal for the editing to be done in two or three stages like this? I wonder whether it would add so much to the workload that no editor or author could stand it. I would like to know what others think. Love, Anthony

Well I'm probably foolish but I do trust people quite a lot. I haven't ever used a pseudonym and have used my real first name and quite often my real surname too and I wonder whether it is a mistake to use real photographs - but I've sent a couple today!But I suppose that it's partly because I'm 73 and as Golda Meir used to say when they told her she should stop smoking "So I should die young?". What can happen to me now? My employer? no I haven't got one. My friends and family? they all know. Now I regret that when I was a school governor I didn't come out as I think someone was needed to try to stop homophobic bullying at that school. Ah well - water under bridge!Which one of you is going to do me harm?Love,Anthony

You wrote: Moving the computer to a family area, putting a time limit on its use and installing filtering software that blocks unsavoury content will make it harder for him. Why do you want to make it hard for him? You won't alter his sexuality and won't make friends by being difficult. Much better to let him be or talk to him about what good sexual relations are like. Removing the disapproving pressure is much more likely to elicit reasonable sensible behaviour than turning it into a battle of wills "Can I stop him" versus "Can I get round her". Anthony (A gay man in his 45th year of a faithful marriage.)

Thank you for that. Is there any way of saving it on my machine so I can play it to people when the internet isn't available? Anthony