Stephen Gately has died! ----(mod warning post #6)

Nico22 wrote: »

Even if Stephen & Andrew did bring Dochev back to smoke crack and go trough every single position from the Karma Sutra -

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Twenty one thousand complaints about her article in the Mail, I wonder what will come of that.
And still no apology to his family.

The truth about my views on the tragic death of Stephen Gately

By Jan Moir



Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.


To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention.


To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain. After all, I am not - unlike those close to Stephen Gately - mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend.


To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral.

The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on?


After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?


We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances.


Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality. If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article.


Yet despite this, many have interpreted my words as a 'bigoted rant' and suggested that my motive was to insinuate that Stephen died 'because he was gay'.


Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.


It is worth stressing that the version of events I recounted in my column had already been in the public domain, having been described in detail in several newspapers.


What had been reported about that night is that Stephen and his civil partner Andrew Cowles went to a nightclub and brought back a Bulgarian man to their apartment.


There were also reports of drug-taking. Following this, it was reported that Cowles went to the bedroom with the Bulgarian, while Stephen remained on the sofa. I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live.



Rather, I thought it a louche lifestyle; one that raised questions about health and personal safety.


There have been complaints about my use of the word 'sleazy' to describe this incident, but I still maintain that to die on a sofa while your partner is sleeping with someone else in the next room is, indeed, sleazy, no matter who you are or what your sexual orientation might be.

My assertion that there was 'nothing natural' about Stephen's death has been wildly misinterpreted.


What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved.


As for Stephen's civil partnership, I am on the record as supporting same-sex marriages.


The point of my observation that there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages.


Indeed, I would stress that there was nothing in my article that could not be applied to a heterosexual couple as well as to a homosexual one.

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.


To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly, though clearly much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own.


However, I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances.



This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?


Certainly, something terrible went wrong as my column ricocheted through cyberspace, unread by many who complained, yet somehow generally and gleefully accepted into folklore as a homophobic rant.


It lit a spark, then a flame and turned into a roaring ball of hate fire, blazing unchecked and unmediated across the internet.


Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine.


Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable.


Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.


Finally, I would just like to say that whatever did or did not happen in Majorca, a talented young man died before his time. This, of course, is a matter of regret and sadness for us all.

mikom wrote: »

Boring....... just a step away from a Jordan and Peter Andre story.

Nico22 wrote: »

If look back over the thread I was more vocal againist Jan Moir than anyone. Just feel that if you are going to discuss anything then it's only fair that both sides are give.

Nico22 wrote: »

What do you mean by 'what'?

Nico22 wrote: »

If it was so 'incomprehensible' then how did you know what 'feeling' it contained?