Why gay men do not have a right to sex with under-16s
Friday, 29 February 2008
It's always mildly enjoyable watching the liberal left come face to face with the inherent contradictions in their dogmas - and then fall abjectly silent, rather than deal with them honestly and robustly. The subject of the Himalayan antics of the poet Cathal O Searcaigh provide a case in point.
On the one hand, he presses most of the right-on buttons in Irish life. He
is a poet! He is a gaeilgeoir of humble stock! Best of all, he is gay! He
is, therefore, above just about all criticism!
Certainly, it places
him beyond any target practice from a monoglot middle class,
English-speaking, heterosexual male such as myself; not that I would want to
join the lynch-mob which has gathered around the fellow's body in the past
few weeks.
And, to be fair to her, the filmmaker Neasa ni Chianain
- who told the tale of the O Searcaigh Nepalese rollicks - is not part of
that lynch-mob either. She was merely well-placed to relate the story.
Moreover, she is a filmmaker, a woman and a gaelgoir - triple qualifications
which I lack and which protect her from the accusations of 'homophobe'.
So, I decided not to write about this issue. But once politicians in both Fine
Gael and Fianna Fail began to declare that Cathal O Searcaigh's poems be
taken off the Leaving Cert, silence was no longer possible.
Are
such dolts completely ignorant of what Oscar Wilde was doing? He was having
sex with teenage rent-boys in precisely the same way that O Searcaigh was,
and in very similar economic and cultural circumstances. It goes against the
Hibernian grain to admit that Wilde was an Irish grandee exploiting
working-class English youths: the national narrative much prefers to see the
Anglo-Saxon exploiting the poor Gael.
The truth is that, like
Roger Casement, he used his position to get sex from the lesser breeds.
Moreover, Wilde, having repeatedly and flagrantly broken the law, then
invited ruin on his silly head by suing the Marquess of Queensbury for
libel.
So, he really deserves very little of the pity which has
been lavished on him ever since.
But that, of course, is beside
the point.
His jewels form an imperishable part of English
literature (and not Anglo-Irish: an entirely different canon). It would be
as absurd to remove his works from any syllabus as it would to remove the
Caravaggio from the National Gallery because the artist was both a sodomite
and a murderer.
Now, I'm not going to say anything about the
relationship between the life of an artist and his work, for this is an area
already steeped in the most insufferable pretension - with Wilde himself
being a prime offender. Moreover, if I have any major regret in life, it is
that I was not the customs officer in New York to whom Wilde declared: "
I have nothing to declare but my genius."
At which point, I
would simply have broken his nose.
As for O Searcaigh's poems, I
haven't read any. Can't. However, if they were good enough to be on the
syllabus yesterday, then they are good enough to be on the syllabus
tomorrow; and there's an end to it.
But there is the larger
aspect, touched upon by both Wilde's conduct and O Searcaigh's: the
behaviour of some male homosexuals with teenage boys.
The 'gay
rights' activist Peter Tatchell recently wrote: "Isn't it time the
lesbian and gay community said, loud and clear, that the under-16s also have
sexual rights? Don't we have a responsibility to defend the right of
under-age queers to make their own free, informed choices about when they
are ready for sex?"
He clarified that later by saying that
yes, 14-year-old boys should, if they want, be allowed to have sex with
40-year-old men. Well, sorry, no.
Any heterosexual male who
proposed such a notion for 14-year-old girls would be hounded into
extinction; but Tatchell remains the hero of the left-libertine classes.
And that rather summarises the cultural and political power of the gay lobby.
A legal apartheid now means that homosexual men are allowed 'freedoms' denied
the rest of us.
Entire parklands in British cities have now been
requisitioned by what Tatchell calls 'queers' for nocturnal, casual sexual
encounters.
And mMuch the same is true of Dublin's Phoenix Park.
I loathe both this, and many of the practices associated with the gay 'scene',
(as indeed do many homosexuals themselves).
There are many
depraved, disgusting practices, about which I reserve both the right to have
an opinion and also to express it. And so, if there is any good to come from
the entire O Searcaigh affair, it is that the rest of us may now finally
speak our minds.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use
