Ed Milliband

The current leader of the Labour party is growing on me.

I know that this is a dangerous thing to allow to happen, and that all mainstream politicians are probably in fact callous moneygrubbing bastards. But I don't seem to be able to help it.

I mean, he's definitely developing a knack for calling Call Me Dave out on his crap. That's probably not a hard thing to do. But still, he's good at it.
From watching PMQs today, it hit me that Eddie M is not actually a horrible public speaker. At least not all the time. He's certainly got the hang of making his points heard in the Commons, and at least today he managed to do so without resorting to pointless populist soundbites. So, he could be much worse.

The main thing, though, is how extravagantly underestimated Milliband is. The standard reaction to his existence tends to be "oh, him, he's useless", or "I definitely couldn't see him as PM". But this seems to be for no reason other than his geeky face and nasally voice. Do we really think, as a voting population, that such things are a crystal-clear window into a person's soul?

The almost-unanimous rejection of any notion that Milliband may, actually, be a half-decent politician seems to me to be a symptom of just how shallow and populist our politics has become. The 2010 election pissed me off massively, just from the fact that Gordon Brown's startlingly evident intelligence and vastly superior economic experience seemed to be swept aside by the fact that Cameron was so much prettier than him. I mean, yeah, I know that's not the only reason Labour lost, and there were some genuinely decent reasons for voting Conservative. But if you think about it rationally for a second, there's sort of absolutely no reason that TV debates would be a good judge of who would make the best Prime Minister. Public speaking can't be more than 15% of the head of government's job. The rest is trying to work out coherent and effective ways of making the country better, something, incidentally, that Call Me Dave seems to be incredibly bad at.

So, yeah. I wouldn't necessarily vote for Milliband, but I think he's worth a lot more than what the media has decided.

Six Things on the Internet Which Have Annoyed Me Recently.

I have a bad habit of obsessively reading things that piss me off. I have no idea why. So yes, my experience with most of the following is entirely my fault. Despite this, however, I think I have a genuine reason to find this stuff irksome enough to blog about. So please enjoy this list of internet-based annoyances I wasn't able to stretch out into a blog post each.

1. The Facebook like-page-thing which says "like if you're a 90s kid without a kid"
This is an exception to the rule above, as it appeared on my Facebook news feed without any deliberate chasing down from me. But yeah. The point of this page is to celebrate the fact that there are 13-22 year olds (yes, I can math) in the world who have not yet begotten children, because, according to the creator, "there aren't many of us left!!". If fact, all the creator of this page is doing is getting a cheap sense of superiority by pointing out the fact that some people have made a mistake he somehow hasn't, and encouraging others to do the same. 
I'm going to blow this wildly out of proportion and use this as a platform for addressing the overarching attitude people seem to have towards teen pregnancy. The general idea is that teenagers with kids are automatically sluttier, less classy, less intelligent, and generally more worthless individuals than the rest of us. Bollocks. Most of the people I have heard bitching about teen parents are themselves a) teenagers and b) not virgins. Clearly and obviously, the only difference between the bitchers and bitchees here is that the bitchees have had a stroke of misfortune the bitchers have escaped (malfunctioning contraception, drunk sex at the wrong time in a menstrual cycle, etc.). The adults who go on about teen pregnancy also have no right to, well, go on about teen pregnancy, because it's precisely none of their business. Getting pregnant as a teenager in no way makes in necessary that the pregnant girl sleeps around, and even if she did, it's still none of your business. You don't get to judge people over how much sex they have, especially when doing so (as it surely must for some of these Daily Mail types) requires self-induced amnesia towards your own teenage years.
I especially hate that teen parenting is another incident in which girls/women are given infinitely more crap for the state of their sex lives than men. Since the boy/man doesn't have to have the foetus growing inside of him, he can take off, or at least walk down streets with strangers having no idea that he's impregnated anyone. Women aren't so lucky. They have the physical symptoms of their misfortune, which open them up to snide glances and comments from anyone in the same few square feet as them.
ANYWAY.

2. People going on about grammar in an unhelpful and boring way
So Youtube comment arguments are a thing which sucks. I think that's essentially a truth universally acknowledged. But it gets infinitely worse when people detract from the topic at hand to bitch at each other over their grammar or spelling.
Obviously the worst instances of this are when people bring in useless, invaluable grammatical rules like split infinitives being bad and how you can't end sentences with prepositions (which will pretty soon earn them a blog post of their own). But even when people do make genuine grammatical errors, like misuse of apostrophes or using the wrong there/their/they're, it's just not a valuable thing to talk about. You understood what they meant. They probably know what the rule is, it just slipped their mind in this particular instance. And most importantly, it does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, automatically make you more clever them them. All it means is they've spent less time/attention in English lessons than you.
There is a certain group of people on the internet (and in, like, the real world) who seem to think that knowledge of spelling and grammar is the infallible means by which we rank the value of each member of our species. To those people, I say, "fuck off".

3. The perpetuation of "people cut themselves/act depressed for attention" myth
This is self explanatory (or SHOULD BE, if you've read my blog posts on the matter, as all humans must do). But, seriously. Jeeeeesus Christ.

4. Art criticism
I know that film or book reviews are by no means the sole domain of the internet, but my only real experience of them is through sites like RottenTomatoes and Goodreads, so I'm going to gripe about them here. Essentially, one's reaction to an artwork is personal and largely emotional, and trying to rationalise such reactions into some kind of objective, prescriptive truth is pointless and annoys me.
I mean, I get that there is an objective standard relating to the quality of art. I get that, technically, the Mona Lisa is probably the highest-quality painting that still survives. But I will never rate the Mona Lisa above the work of Van Gogh, because for me, the ML is just a painting of a lady, and Van Gogh's Starry Night is a moving and heartbreaking testament to the beauty of the universe. And that's okay.
The problem I have with art criticism is that the artsy reasons for crediting/discrediting something often have very little bearing on whether people will actually enjoy them. So what if the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel contains it's fair share of clichés. So what if the idea of children fighting to death in an arena under a totalitarian government did not leap fresh and unprecedented from Suzanne Collins' brain. That does not stop the Marigold Hotel from being funny and moving and wise and a joy to watch, or the Hunger Games from being thrilling and edgy and sad and joyful and immensely readable.
If art criticism exists, it must be to give people an idea of whether they would like a film/book/painting/whatever were they to experience it. It cannot be for the sake of satisfying the egos of pretentious irritating farts who like the feeling of importance writing gives them but don't have the capacity to write about anything interesting. Right now, the way such criticism works is great for the latter role, but completely fails to fill the first.

5. The Sun website
Because it vastly reduces the chance of the Sun stopping existing.
 
6. The BBC News comments section
One thing I will never, ever understand is why, when the BBC were deciding how to put together an internet based news service, they thought: "Hey, do you know what would be a nifty idea? Why don't we open certain articles up for being commented on by any member of the public, no matter how half-baked or uninformed their opinion is!"
My issue is this. I'm fine with people sharing there opinions, even when their opinions annoy me. But the internet is already a bountiful hunting ground for opinion-sharing opportunities, as proven by this blog. As well as blogs, there's twitter, youtube comments, Guardian opinion piece comments, etc. All these places are good arenas for open commenting for their own varied reasons. But BBC News is a place for fact. It's where nearly all British people, and many non-British people, go to try and understand what's occurring in the world each day. And having a page full of the random musing and reckonings of anyone who feels remotely strongly about an issue distorts that completely, particularly as the type of people who comment on BBC News tends to be the type of person who makes up their opinion before registering any but the most basic facts. BBC News comments have largely become a mincing ground for angry uninformed right-wing types, whose proximity to each others' views makes them think that more people agree with them then actually do. What I mean by that, is that if someone writes something like "poor people should lose their child benefit to stop them breeding because everyone born into a poor family is destined to be a scrounger", and it gets "voted up" 30 times, then the people reading the comment will think "wow, this must be a really popular view". In fact, it just means that 31 people hold that view, which given the number of people with access to the internet, isn't remotely surprising.
Also, I just don't really care about these people's stupid opinions, and don't see why anyone else would. I realise that probably makes me sound like a bastard, but I just can't comprehend how a substantial percentage of the people who read BBC News could possibly think: "well this is an interesting story, I wonder what a load of random people with keyboards with absolutely no qualifying connection to the issue have to say about this".


Aaaand that's all the bitching I'm going to do for today. I hope you had fun.

Happy Hunger Games!

So I know I don't usually use this blog to post film or book reviews. But I'm going to start, right now, predominantly because I just saw the film adaptation of the Hunger Games. And it was SO. GOOD.

So I loved this book. Basically, of the new books I've read this year so far, two have immediately leapt into my List of Favourite Books of All Time: The Fault in our Stars (which I've already bored everyone by raving about) and the Hunger Games Trilogy. HG has actually been out since 2008, but whatever. I take pride in not reading books until after everyone else already has done. I am a reverse hipster.

So obviously, when someone makes a film based on a book you love, there is HUGE EXCITEMENT, and there is also a sense of dread. You really want to see the fictional world you adore made into real actors and sets and things, but you also really don't want them to get it wrong. And I've had my fair share of disappointments with adaptations of books, Eragon and Harry Potter Six being the biggest examples. So I knew what the risk was.
But they got the Hunger Games film so, so right. Better than I ever dared to hope to dare to expect.

So I guess I should outline the plot, because that's what you're supposed to do, but I'm pretty sure everyone already knows it. Suffice to say, there's a future distopian type place called Panem, consisting of one Capitol and twelve Districts. Every year, two children from every District are reaped into competing in a reality show in which they have to fight to the death, basically because the people who rule Panem are dicks. This girl called Primrose Everdeen, who is the most sweet and innocent girl to ever exist in human history, gets reaped, and her kickass older sister, Katniss, volunteers in her place.

The reason the film is so good is because it mirrors exactly the spirit of the book: the twisted morality of the Paneminians, the shock of watching twelve-to-eighteen-year-olds reduced to killing machines, and the brutal empathy you cannot help but experience as you watch the Games occur through Katniss's eyes.
The film makers did the same thing which Suzanne Collins does, but perhaps even better: they make every single contestant in the Games into a human being. Every single death in the arena kills you, even though you're supposed to root for Katniss's victory, and even though many of the contestants are bastards. You truly understand that every one of the tributes is a human, and a child, and a victim of the same cruel system that has torn Katniss from everything she knows.

The film actually adds bits which are really effective, and which Collins would not have been able to do on paper. Like the scenes outside the arena during the games, with the Game Masters and Snow and Haymitch. I loved them. I loved how much they added to the feeling of outrage you regarding the nature of the games, and how they make it ever more clear how much control the Capitol has over these kids' lives.

I want to talk about the film in more depth than the desire to not spoil it for people will let me, so I'm going to do a second post in which I freely spoil everything. Please don't read it if you have neither read not seen the Hunger Games, because experiencing them without being spoiled is not an experience you want to miss.

This film/book will change the way you see and think about pretty much everything. It's a masterpiece, and all humans must experience it in one or preferably both of it's forms. Katniss' story is one of the most heart-wrenching and powerful works of fiction of all time. 

Age before logic?

"Heritage" is fast becoming my least favourite word of all time.

People often argue, when defending the House of Lords, or even the pus-filled sac of evil which is the British voting system, that such things are part of our heritage or tradition and as such have some kind of inalienable right to continue existing. What the hell?

Being part of British heritage essentially just means that something is a) British and b) old. Well, so what. Bacteria have been around for a pretty damn long time too.
Where does anyone get the idea that just because a political institution is old means that it is undeniably good? Where is the sense?

 Honestly, I'm just bemused.

I mean, it comes up all the time. During the AV debates, the Tories tried to shove down our throats the idea that first-past-the-post is an essential part of British democracy, entirely because it's been around for a long time. One of the main anti-gay marriage arguments literally boils down to "gay marriage is all new and stuff, straight marriage has been like it is for ages and we shouldn't change it" - which is also factually inaccurate, but I've covered that in a different blog.
Someone should play a drinking game where they watch ten House of Commons debates on political reform, and drink a shot every time someone says the word "heritage" or "tradition" or any other of those revolting synonyms for "it's old lol" which I'm growing to hate. They would get utterly wasted.

Don't think that because I don't think age holds inherent value, I want to demolish all the castles and cathedrals and banish archaeologists to the void. I don't. History is undeniably important, but that's because learning about the past teaches us something that we can apply to the present. Applying the concept of heritage in the way that the quasi-fictitious people I'm arguing with would have us do has no such benefit.

So basically, the next person who states in my presence that an aspect of politics in this or any country should be preserved simply because it is old will probably be slapped in the face.

"What happened to your arm?"

So here's a fun fact: I used to cut myself. I realise this isn't that uncommon a trait, and please don't think the point of this blog is wean sympathy from anyone. But really, the relative not-uncommonness of self harm is kind of the point. I think one of the best approaches to mental health involves sufferers and ex-sufferers sharing their testimonials, to show solidarity with those in the same place as them, and to gently erode the taboo which surrounds depression. So here goes.

I've spent most of living memory battling the great shape-shifting demon of depression and self hatred. This is a problem that has taken various forms throughout my life, and my flirtation with self harm was sort of the grand finale of this saga, before I finally got professional help. Previous coping tactics included constant anger at everything. co-dependency, and maniacal arrogance, and there were periods where I didn't bother to cope at all, and just let myself despair. The underlying problem (as far as me and my counselor have been able to work out) was the deep-rooted belief that I was not only worthless, but an active force for destruction, and exclusively capable of having a negative effect on everyone around me.
So self-harm, for most the summer of 2011, was the method by which I channeled and coped with this state of mind. I wasn't even trying to punish myself, at least not consciously. It just felt like a controlled way to exercise the destructive and hateful feelings I had towards myself, and often much of what was around me.

I am using the past tense for a good reason, I should add. My brain is currently a healthier place than it has ever been, and for perhaps the first time in living memory I am able to honestly say that I am not a force for evil. I have, as I put it to some of my friends after my last counseling session, been "given my sanity card". Not that my mental health is perfect: mental health rarely is. And not that depressed people are "insane" or "crazy" in the traditional, mostly derogatory use of the word. But for the first time in a ridiculous number of years, I can say that I am definitely not in some stage of some cycle of some symptom of depression, which is exhilarating.

So the first thing I want to discuss in depth is the motivation behind self-harm, because it's one of the most misunderstood human activities in the universe. Self-harm is not the same as attempted suicide. They are worlds apart. Often, cutting yourself seems like the only was to avoid ending your life. As I said: it's a channel, a way of alleviating (however temporarily) the dark state of mind you are forced to cope with every day. That's admittedly not true for everyone. But it's what was the case for me, and my sources inform me it is the most commonly cited explanation of what self-harm does for the self-harmer. The point is, cutting yourself does not mean you are suicidal. Suicidal thoughts and the thoughts which beget self-harm are two things which should be dealt with very differently; although neither of them is something anyone should be ashamed of.

That's my second point, actually. It does not help to shame those who cut themselves. The taboo which surrounds depression and all visible signs of it is is dangerous and damaging, and if you find that someone close to you is self-harming, you should always respond with compassion and an attempt to understand rather than scorn. I actually wrote another blog post about all this, but it needs reiterating with specific reference to self-harm.  Many self-harmers never rid themselves of the shame; even now, "what happened to your arm?" and "where did those scars come from?" and their various forms are questions I dread being asked. If you self-harm, you do not need to feel ashamed about it. It's a coping mechanism in response to a terrible suffering, and even makes some kind of rational sense. It does not make you weak or ungrateful or selfish.

Although, and this is the third point, it's important to make clear the fact that self harm does not work. Not in the long term. Cutting yourself does provide some blessed relief from depression, but it won't last long (as I'm sure you know by now), and you will need to constantly repeat the action to keep your head clear for any sustained period of time. This is unhealthy. Not shameful, but unhealthy. I realise that this is the most unwelcome advice which is every given to anyone, but depression serious enough to cause you to hurt yourself needs professional help. If there is a way out of such a state of mind that can be achieved without the assistance of a counselor or therapist, then I have never heard of it.

I haven't actually finished my anecdote, vague as it is, so let me fill in the bit between when I was self-harming and when I started being counseled. Basically, my parents found out. Which sucked.
Two days after one of my more extreme sessions of self-harm, I was away in Brighton with my dad. I had been careful to wear long sleeves since that night, but we were sitting next to one another at the bus stop, and I unconsciously rolled up my left sleeve to scratch my elbow, and he saw my scars, and yeah. His reaction was one of sadness rather than anger, but I still found it really difficult to deal with. He later told my mum, and we had a few parent-son three-way discussions on the matter, which gradually progressed from awkward to constructive. And somewhere along the process, we agreed that I should get professional help: which to be honest, I had already decided for myself, but was unwilling to do anything about it (as is usually the way).

As much as this is stating the obvious: depression is just a really shitty thing to go through. Falling into, and extracting yourself from, the habit (or sometimes psychological addiction) of self harm is a particularly difficult battle in a much larger war. I think sometimes the carers and loved ones of self-harmers focus too much on the actual process of self-harm, without recognising that it is merely a symptom of a much more deep-rooted and damaging problem.You can't really blame them: the scars from self-harm are there and real and tangible, and the more subtle aspects of depression are buried deep in the murky depths of the human mind. But it's important to try and target the feelings behind self-harm rather than focusing on trying to break the habit itself, because the habit itself is distantly secondary.
Also, self-harm is something that physically scars you for life. The scars on a self-harmer's arm will never fully heal. It can often feel like a brand, an inescapable sign of some terrible weakness. In reality, they are battle scars, the last vestiges of a time of great suffering. Do not be ashamed that you have suffered. Don't necessarily be proud that you have self-harmed, but be proud that you came through the battle with depression alive, and whole, and relatively well.

Also, don't ever think that someone who self-harms is doing it for attention. That is almost never, ever the case, and if it is the case, then that person needs just as much help as all other sufferers of depression. The cutter = attention seeker myth is a destructive lie that has damaged the wellbeing of countless masses of your fellow humans. Do not ever proliferate it.

May those who self-harm be blessed with strength, love and guidance, and may those who deal with those who self-harm be blessed with compassion and the will to understand. And may we all be blessed with a future which better accommodates those who suffer.

Not being racist is sooo last year.

There is a certain type of white, British, right-of-centre, faux-intellectual person for whom racism has become fashionable. This is evidenced by the swarms of people who will come out in Youtube comments and TV news voxpops to defend David Starkey and Nick Griffin from the perceived "PC brigade", and who seem to regard any statement implying that black people are inferior to/ have a damaging effect on white people with a kind of quasi-religious reverence.

Take the comments on this video documenting David Starkey's fascinating views that the riots in August were caused by black people making white people more black. Starkey's theory is factually incorrect on about eight different levels, and both the people arguing with him make some valid and thoughtful points. But the Starkey Legion don't seem to care. They blather on about Lord David as though he's just comprehensively debunked the Theory of Relativity, and blindly assume that anyone who disagrees with his view is an emotionally-invested politically-correct juvenile leftie face. In which case, I have news. People aren't just disagreeing with Starkey because they don't want to be racist. They're disagreeing with him because he is wrong.
The comments themselves seem to directly embody what I mean by "faux-intellectual". The top-rated comment ("Starkey doesn't come across as any kind of idiot...") manages to hammer out an entire paragraph saying precisely nothing, then goes on to use a positive ad-hominem argument (Starkey is an intellectual, therefore he is right, LOL), put words in the mouths of his opponents, and baselessly claim that Starkey's points are "clear, valid and useful". The second one seems to be of the opinion that "the vast [majority] of the white population in the uk believes that black people caused these riots", and that appealing to what the majority supposedly think is a valid rational argument defending Starkey's point. Which is wrong at least twice, and yet it has been thumbed-up 440 times. What the actual HELL?
The rest of the comments go on to say that the "PC fuckers are responsible for the mess we have nowadays" - because trying to promote inclusive language towards black and working-class people is obviously going to make them riot. Another one talks about how it's shameful for anyone to ever use a black accent or stereotypically teenage dialect if you live in the same country as Shakespeare did (64 thumbs up). Another (almost hilariously) uses completely fictitious "United Nations figures" to argue that "Negroes are 10 and 20% less intelligent than White People". Yet another talks (complete irrelevantly) about how Labour have deliberately accelerated immigration to destroy European culture, and by doing so they should be hanged for "cultural genocide" (whatever that may be) (69 thumbs up). And on. And on. And on.

You can see the problem. The racialist, anti-multiculturalism bandwagon is gathering speed and passengers at a rate of knots. Political illiterates believe that any wild criticism of "black culture", or of the idea that white and blacks can live together without killing each other, is a thoughtful and valid political argument. It's insane.

How has this happened? Well, you'll be thrilled to know that I have a theory.

The thing is: almost every single human, on some level, regards themselves as an underdog. We are all conscious of the fact that, not only were we born into a world where nature is totally apathetic to our survival and wellbeing, but we also essentially have to compete with 7 billion other humans who are all trying to achieve the same things as we are*. It's a daunting prospect for everyone, and it seems that many people die without ever doing anything other than trying to cope with the massive world which seems to be so unanimously against them.
And this applies whether you are rich, poor, white, black, whatever. But when you are a member of the white middle-class, you are told constantly that you are on top, that your kind are responsible for suppressing everyone else, that you will have an easier ride of it that everyone outside your demographic group. But this doesn't seem to fit with your intuitive perception of yourself as an underdog, and your understanding that you will still have to fight to get everything you want from life.
Blacks, the working class, gays, Muslims, women- all these people have political and cultural movements dedicated to their empowerment. But if you are in all the majorities, you don't have that. As far as politics is concerned, you don't need empowerment. So when someone like David Starkey, or a movement like the BNP, espouse political theories that confirm your suspicion that you are in fact an underdog, many people can't help but grasp at them. "Of course I am threatened politically! Don't you see, my identity as a white person is being eroded by all this immigration and what have you? Isn't it obvious, the liberal elite (whoever they are) want to take away all my hard-earned money?"

One of the reasons tribalism is so appealing is that you get to join a group of people who unconditionally want to fight for your empowerment as a person. Race- or class-driven politics consists of groups of people coming together with the same belief, that they are underdogs, and channeling the blame for their (percievedly) weak position on a group of people who are different from them in some way. To a certain extent, the gay rights, civil rights and feminist movements can degenerate into the same thing as Starkeyism: "straights/whites/men are suppressing us, it's their fault, all of them are evil!". But at least minority rights movements are based on a correct observation: that these people have less rights than those people, and this should be rectified. The British Nationalist etc. movement, as well as anti-gay social conservatism, is based on the belief that equal rights will weaken the position of the majority, and this theory is embraced by so many because it presses the buttons of all those who privately believe that they are underdogs.

So basically: don't fall for it.


*I don't actually believe that all-pervading dog-eat-dog competition is a realistic or helpful view of the world, but living in proximity to other individuals with all the same wants as you will eventually necessitate some kind of competition.

You're Not Always Entitled To Your Opinion

So this blog post may go horribly wrong. But whatever.

I've recently found a new tumblr blog (tumblog?) entitled "I'm not homophobic, but..." It's essentially a collection of ignorant anti-gay comments made on Twitter and Facebook, whose authors still claim to (wait for it) not be homophobic.
So obviously this blog stimulates my various juices for a number of reasons, but the thing I'd particularly like to highlight is that political standby which is getting thrown around a lot in these posts: "yeah, I don't like gays, but that's my opinion! I'm entitled to it! Leave me alone!"

The assumption we often make when debating politics (well, when it's convenient to us) is that whatever our opinion is on something, we are basically entitled to hold it. But that's not actually the case. As much as it seems to go against a lot of what I stand for to admit it, there are some things you don't get to have an opinion on.
Take gravity. You cannot hold the personal belief that gravity does not exist. If you claim you do, then everyone will tell you that you are wrong. Because you are.
Also, murder. If someone believes that killing people for no reason is okay, they are a psychopath. They are mentally ill. You don't get to hold a personal opinion on murder.
And what of white supremacy? Would you say that it's okay to think that black people are inferior? Are racists entitled to these opinions? No.
(Side note: Can anyone explain to me why prejudice against black people is considered by so many to be so much more outrageous than any other prejudice? Anti-black racism is more taboo than sexism, homophobia, transphobia, even racism against other groups, like Asians, Hispanics and Eastern Europeans. Obviously I'm happy that anti-black sentiment is so almost-universally unacceptable, and it gives me hope that all prejudice will one day be seen like that. But I'm also curious as to why black people are so much more protected than any other persecuted group.)

So it seems people are not inherently entitled to every personal opinion they would like to hold. You do not have the right to hold a position which goes against damning scientific truth, or which goes against instinctive collective human morality, or which goes along the lines of "this demographic group of people is inferior to me".
So do you have the right to believe that homosexuality is wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Let's explore.
Firstly, when I say "instinctive collective human morality", I am referring to moral beliefs which all non-infant, non-mentally-ill humans hold intuitively, and which objectively and unambiguously contributes to the survival  and/or development of our species. This includes "do not murder", "do not steal", "do not lie excessively", "do not cause people physical or emotional harm if at all avoidable (or something)". "Do not engage in homosexual shenanigans" does not belong to this category, because a huge percentage of mentally healthy adults do not object to homosexuality, and because any attempt to show that homosexuality destroys humanity is invariably flawed and foolish. So that's the first point: you cannot claim that homosexuality is objectively wrong. The main objection to this point will be "it is objectively wrong, because God says it's wrong", but the problem with this is that even if God exists, no human genuinely knows what his will is. God's apparent prophets have a history of saying very different things, and all religious people must accept that their sacred texts are not objectively accepted to be God's word.
Despite this, you can hold a personal objection to homosexuality. While homosexuality is not objectively wrong, it is possible for people to hold emotional negative reactions to it, and it is okay to acknowledge that these exist. If homosexuality seems wrong to you, then it's okay to live your life by that assumption, because homosexuality is not objectively right, either. However: there is a difference between this reaction and the belief that it is wrong, the difference amounting to the fact that you have no right to teach others to abide by your objection to gay sex, or use the law to curb the rights of those who indulge in gay shenanigans. You must acknowledge that your reaction to homosexuality is not rational, nor objectively moral, but predominantly emotional.
But the most important thing is that you cannot believe that gay people are inferior to you. You do not have the right to any kind of prejudice, including homophobia. Discrimination based on demographic group belongs in the "objectively immoral" category, and genuinely does damage our species (hate crime, death camps, bullying-induced suicide, tribalism, have-have not polarisation). You have no more the right to discriminate in word or action against gays than a psychopath does to murder. If you have an instinctive urge to dislike people who are gay, then it is your responsibility to educate yourself and get used to the fact that gay people exist, because homophobia is a dangerous trait which will be damaging to your fellow human beings.

Another thing I'd like to talk about, while I'm at it, is evolution. There is a disturbing number of people who demand that their right to not believe in evolution should be respected, which is very irritating. Because no such right exists.
By all means, reserve judgement until you have seen the evidence, and don't automatically believe anything that anyone in a lab coat tells you. But to shut your eyes and refuse to believe something in the face of the mountain of evidence we have, just because it is inconvenient to your theological disposition, is disgraceful. If the scientific community has found something to by true, then they have the right to teach you and your children about it.
The especially irritating comment I heard on Monday was a response to a casual mention I made that Charles Darwin might replace the Queen on money if we scrapped the monarchy (it was a long conversation). My conversational partner gasped with that gleeful outrage which only a certain type of person can manage, and gravely informed me of the scandals and controversy that would ensue if we replaced Elizabeth Windsor's beloved face with that of Evil Blasphemous Satanist Darwin.
Admittedly she was a Devout-Catholic-Toryface, and (by the sounds of it) most of her acquaintances are Devout-Christian-Toryfaces as well, so she probably has a slightly skewed view of what national sentiment towards such things is. But, annoyingly, I couldn't say she was definitely wrong. Let's emphasize this: Charles Darwin was a genius. He contributed more to scientific understanding of our world that almost any resident of his era. He did not set out to destroy religion, but to find the truth. If I believed in patriotism, I would undoubtedly consider him a credit to our nation. But because his findings are contrary to literal interpretation of the bible - despite the fact that his theory of evolution is embraced by every credible scientist on the planet - there are those who want him and his work to be uncredited and left in the sidelines. This is outrageous. An attitude like this to science is anti-intellectual, damaging to human development and, frankly, bigoted. I know that word gets tossed around a lot, but it's absolutely appropriate in this context.

So. After that little rant, it's time to conclude. Some things are true, and you don't get to hold a personal opinion on. Blocking out science and reason for ideological convenience is unacceptable. Saying "it's my opinion, leave me alone" is not a get-out-of-jail free card in any and every debate.

Until next time.