Week 2 - Australian Open Qualifying (Hard)

Michael D · All-time great

RE: Week 2 - Australian Open Qualifying (Hard)

Jajon · Strong Club Player

Ello, ello, as a big gay who's in a same sex relationship, let me comment here and push that gay agenda ;)

While I understand the naming of the court after Margaret has nothing to do with her personal beliefs and everything to do with her tennis, I do still think that it should be renamed.
While this may all seem very over dramatic to some, the facts regarding LGBT community and their mental health are staggering and they're between 2 and 10 times more likely to commit suicide. It was always believed that this was because if you're hiding in the closet and have the potential of being alienated from your family then of course you're going to be more depressed. However this is still true in societies such as Netherlands (where same sex marriage has been legalised since 2001 and Sweden which has had civil partnerships since 1995), where men married to men are three times more likely to kill themselves than men married to women.
If you're gay you're more likely to suffer from cardiovascular problems, asthma, even erectile dysfunction, basically, you name it, we got it! Haha! It's also been found that gay kids have a similar amount of stressor life events as straight people but the ones they did experience inflicted more harm on their nervous system. Therefore, this all portrays how it is society that has made LGBT people feel like they're second class citizens and that has a genuine, physical effect on them. While this may not be in overt homophobic terms, examples such as homosexual couples are more likely to be aware and reluctant of holding their partners hand down the street in case they're heckled/insulted/assaulted, (this does still happen). So all of these consistent precautions and second guesses which are still necessary obviously have a negative effect on people.
(Bringing it back to the tennis...) This is why I think it should be renamed, it's not as though Margaret Court had slight reservations about same sex marriage, she said some truly awful things, comparing the "gay agenda" to nazism and acts of the devil etc etc. So, obviously I'm not saying the naming of the court is directly a cause for harm in LGBT (particularly young) people, it's just another point of contention, which is constantly discussed and is a constant reminder of how some people do see you as being a second class citizen..(or similar to a nazi), just for who you're attracted to, something that no one can choose for themselves. As society evolves I genuinely think it's important to remember her achievements but not to celebrate her, which is what the naming of the court is effectively doing. If you're not a member of a minority group I know this can all seem very... dramatic but it's like having a constant hit on the arm which isn't painful but overtime it becomes all that you can notice, by taking her name off the court, it's one step closer to a time when sexuality won't matter as it shouldn't be how others define them.
Also tennis was voted by LGBT people as the most gay friendly sport, why not go the extra step to show the sports commitment to inclusivity?

Sorry for the jabbering and if anyone is interested in where I got my facts from there was a really interesting article (which is even longer than this post), that came out last year that I showed mildly homophobic members of my family who were like "oh, ok".

(Wont appreciate anyone who calls me a snowflake hahahah)

highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/gay-loneliness/

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Michael D wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
As a separate point, civil partnerships should be available to opposite-sex couples too.

There are many heterosexual couples who wish to formalise their arrangement without what is to them the paternalistic trappings of 'marriage', whether religious or civil.

At the moment it is against the law.

It will go before the Supreme Court soon but there is no excuse for that discrimination either, in my view.
Yes I agree. I was quite shocked when I read that heterosexual couples were not entitled to establish a simple civil partnership of that nature - obviously when first established they were seen as some kind of second class legal relationship category and not one that might actually be desired by couples of whatever mix.

Yes. England (as with so many things) seems to have got itself caught out. Civil Partnerships were introduced because gay marriage was not allowed. And so it was only available to same-sex couples. Logical enough - apart from the fact that the premise was wrong. When same-sex marriage was legalised you were then left with both options for gay couples but only one for opposite-sex couples.

Now there are two logical choices: the UK could (like Belgium, I think it is) get rid of civil partnerships. Just marriage for everyone. Or like France - offer marriage or civil partnerships to anyone and everyone.

But we've decided to do neither and end up with ridiculous lop-sided and discriminatory system. (As an aside, it is only this year that - finally - the marriage certificate will be amended so you can enter your mother's name and details - at the moment and for the last god knows how may centuries there has only been room to enter the father's details - the mother is nameless and does not figure. It's not surprising that some opposite-sex couples want to be 'partners' in their relationship and not 'man and wife').