Quite a few interesting articles re 'gayness in pop' (sorry - dreadful phrasing but couldn't think of another way to put it!)

Two criticisms though:
1. Freddie Mercury iirc was in the closet for almost all of his life. Looking back it seems obvious he was gay, but that's rewriting history.
2. Tom Watkins and Miranda Sawyer both insinuate certain new stars are closeted gays in a manner which read in a detrimental way to me.

Anyway, the Elton John interview was a great read whatever one's proclivities! Generally speaking there's more tolerence now...isn't there?

Just finished reading the Joe Meek article but I wonder why journos seem so loathe to interview someone who was there.

Or why Jon Savage didn't ask to include Gay Girl or I Don't Wanna Be Gay in his gay compilation album; I'd have happily allowed it.

Todays Vile Perverts and "Paedos" are the gays of yesterday.

Or the Jews of the day before yesterday.

So the answer Fred is; no, there is even less tolerance, but it's better disguised.

I`m intrigued by the "tolerence" question. Where we live there is a rather large gay community, and there is a tolerance of sort, but it strikes myself as being all about money. Everybody knows everyone, and when a new person arrives into the community there is great excitement and gossip.
Where the "tolerence" and money come into it, is the amount of clubs that will never turn down a gay night simply because it`s a guaranteed sell-out, everyone who knows anyone will go.
And that is the only nod of approval which is apparent.
There is a larger degree of genuine human acceptance, but it does not span far outside the community, then stretches into the, annoying, sympathy vote and finally to the age old hatred, which one would like to feel would go away one day but never will.
And STILL when someone is outed or comes out,(particularly celebs) it`a major story, when THAT stops happening, I believe there will be genuine acceptance and "tolerence".
Lets face it, it ain`t going to happen.

The 1980s seemed to be the "cool to be gay" decade. The pop charts was full of outed gay performers, and celebs seemed to be queuing to announce their gayness.

Personally, I'd prefer people kept their sexuality to themselves, whatever their leaning.

Martin wrote:

And STILL when someone is outed or comes out,(particularly celebs) it`a major story...
Lets face it, it ain`t going to happen.

Not so sure about that - David Yelland's landmark quote while he was editor of the Sun was *Gay's not news".

Which is why Rebekah Wade has embraced the new enemy for her dear readers - they do need someone/something to hate.

Oswald Mosley was quite right when he observed that hate is a stronger bond for a group than tolerance and acceptance.

As an apparent refugee from the far end of the spectrum (straight, don't care what anyone does in bed. If I like em I like em and that's it) I can say most of my friends are pretty much the same. I take exception to people telling me that people I know are good people are 'despicable in the sight of God' (in the United Theocracy of America) or just 'unnatural'...

From what I can tell, being Gay is as much of a choice as my taste for buxom women with a slow smile, a dirty laugh, and eyes to drown in... so the 'hassle' over it is almost a complete mystery to me. People try to explain, but in the end it's like explaining fluid dynamics to a house brick.

Problem with 'people' is that a person is smart on the whole, but people like to let other people think for them.

There isn't really a monolithic group of 'Gays' any more than there is a monolithic 'Black', 'Asian', 'Islamic', 'Jewish', 'Women' or 'White' one... it's lazy thinking... but then you can expect that of large groups of people who don't belong to the itemised demographic...

"Todays Vile Perverts and "Paedos" are the gays of yesterday"

I have no problem with anything two consenting adults wish to enjoy between one another in bed. But however medieval the public's perception of the homosexual community may have been in the past, I don't think that the perception of sexual relations between two consenting adults of any persuasion could be compared to the (rightfully) scathing public perception of the actions of a paedophile towards a vulnerable and impressionable child who is liable to be both physically and mentally affected forever as a result of said actions.

Homosexuality has, rightfully, become accepted by the public as, with time, prejudices have fallen away and it has been accepted that two adults can, and will, do with one another what the hell they please.

This will not, and should never be so with child abuse.

Ah, but Harley, we were just discussing this over food here, homophobics put me back on track away from the users, and I am grateful for this.

Oh Red any right thinking person would agree with you as long as the terms and descriptions are correct but when the lines get blurred and people get categorised in the wrong way, as an excuse to exaggerate and gain extremes for stories... then we are all in trouble.

Please remember we exist in a world where a male sleeping with another male, who was the same age as would have been legal if they were female, is convicted of historical crimes and branded as a paedo".

Homophobes use that kind of activity to persecute, as the Nazis did to the Jews.

"Well your grandfather was Jewish" was then. "Well 16 was illegal then if either party was male not female" is now.

"Homosexuality has, rightfully, become accepted by the public as, with time, prejudices have fallen away and it has been accepted that two adults can, and will, do with one another what the hell they please."

This, I'm afraid is a declining view...

Anyway... Apparently this was about food so... back to the delights culinaire!!!! (I'll have a savaloise... oo-errr Matron!)