By Alastair Campbell / @campbellclaret
David Cameron last week chose an exclusive central London venue, the Paramount Club, with a ticket price of 50 pounds for a two-hour cocktail party, to blow kisses at the LGBT community.
The lucky few who were present – in the main well-heeled metropolitan professionals – (by the way Dave, there are also gay people among the poor, ethnic minorities, who have families and don’t live in London) – were treated to a short speech by Mr Cameron followed by an even shorter Q&A session.
Apparently he had another very important fundraiser to attend (yes, I understand the vast majority of the money went to the Conservative Party, not to the Pride London charity which the event was advertised as celebrating).
Nowadays the Tories appear to accept that gay people, gay voters and gay politicians have a right to exist, even if there was a financial purpose behind this event. There have always been gay people right at the heart of all parties. But for the Conservatives it was never discussed. It was swept into a Central Office closet that remained firmly shut.
Cameron acknowledged that the Tories had “got it wrong” in the past, saying “sorry” for Section 28, with the slippery 'explanation' that “it was an emotional issue.” I suppose persecution is an emotional issue, for persecutor and persecuted.
There is more explanation required from Mr Cameron, though he will have been pleased that as ever the papers reported the event pretty much as he would have wanted them to. I think there are some on the Guardian staff for example, who would report him blowing his nose into a clean hankie as a decisive and dramatic act of modernisation.
When Dave is around, inconvenient facts tend to get airbrushed.
Not only did he use the opportunity to raise a tidy sum from wealthy Tories. Not only does he have an appalling personal record on gay rights. Most importantly a) he did not offer genuine contrition not just for getting it wrong, but over the years supporting every anti-gay measure (such as Section 28) and opposing almost every piece of equality legislation in the past decade, b) he did not offer any commitment on what the Tories would do on LGBT equality and anti-discrimination issues.
Cameron says his party has moved on but you can’t do that without confronting the past and acknowledging the true scale of the stigma inflicted on young people by Section 28 and the true happiness that civil partnerships have given people and their families, including members of his Shadow Cabinet.
In 2000, Mr Cameron said that the Blair government was obsessed with a "fringe agenda... including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools".
Two years later, he told a Guardian fringe meeting at a Tory conference that he backed the repeal of the legislation - only to vote for the Conservative motion to keep S28 a year later.
A little introspection on the impact of what he said and how he voted would not go amiss.
Cameron was asked in the Q & A about what should be done about homophobic bullying. His response was to reel out Tory policy about giving more powers to schools and teachers. How does that solve the problem?
There needs to be hard work, much of it already being done by Stonewall and supported by the Labour government, not only to educate pupils but to train teachers and punish any homophobic statements by teachers – which gay people still hear and have been deeply affected by as children. Giving more powers to schools “to crack down on this sort of behaviour” demonstrates a real lack of understanding and depth of knowledge about the complexity of the issue.
Finally, Cameron was lily-livered to say the least in his attempted justification for his MEPs' plan to link up with a new group that includes the Polish Law & Justice Party. The president of Poland, who is a member of this party, is vehemently anti-gay and banned gay pride when he was mayor of Warsaw.
According to Amnesty International the party has been responsible for unacceptable homophobic statements.
Roman Giertych, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, said on Polish TV in 2006 that “LGBT organisations are sending transsexuals to kindergartens and asking children to change their sex.” He also dismissed the director of the National In-Service Teacher Training Centre, an institution subordinate to the Ministry of Education, because “a lot of books there were encouraging teachers to organise meetings with LGBT non-governmental organisations.”
Dave's defence was that Poland is a very conservative and religious country. Well, Dave, so is Spain and the Spanish voted recently to recognise gay marriages.
So why link up with a party that is homophobic except to cobble together a new rabble of right-wingers in the European Parliament to satisfy his anti-EU MPs. Dave also said the Law and Justice Party has signed a pledge on equality and that it’s homophobia is in the past. Nonsense. It’s leader and president of the country has not changed. Would Dave accept a party with a racist platform in his new group of extremists if they signed a pledge? No. The Polish Law & Justice Party has been and continues to be deeply homophobic in its attitudes and its politics. Its politics should have no association with British politics and a British political party should not be in the business of embracing them.
Alastair Campbell also blogs at www.alastaircampbell.org.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The Tories' allegience with Michael kaminski in the Euro parliament is nothing short of a disgrace. Contrary to his modernisation agenda that the media has lapped up, by allowing the party to associate with extremist pseudo-nazis Cameron has explicitly displayed just how reactionary his party is. The homophobic policies promoted by Kaminski are little concern to Cameron, it is uninportant, peripheral or fringe politics. Thanks Alistair, please continue to highlight the contradictions and dangers of a potential Cameron government.
I think we should all ready ourselves for when the next Labour government decides to make gayism compulsory by an order laid in Parliament - now that's democratic. That'll be 2040 then, by which time the average temperature in London will be 28 degrees C and central London will be flooded. Better things to do?
Deep recession? Public finances shot to pieces? PM a blatant and incompetant liar on spending cuts?
Not to worry, lets wallow in LGBT week(s), we can all wear a funny pink hat and pretend all those striaght people with their worries over jobs and mortgages are just "sooooo not with it darling".
Go on: chase the 'pink' vote while New Labour's divide and rule, corruption and treachery sink us. There's nothing like priorities, eh?
Personally I'm more than a little sick to death with it. I wrote a reply on an earlier thread that I think now sums up my view on the matter. Endless "in your face" gay activist vitriol leads me to the following conclusion:
I have pretty much all my life had a live and let live attitude and been about as non descriminatory as I could be.
However, I've come to the conclusion that the views the gay activists on LL represent and the views I represent are totally incompatable. Further it really is a battle in society over whether the immoral vision they adhere to wins out or not.
How to fight this battle though? Do we all join the BNP to put a stop to your nonsense? I don't think I could vote for a racist party if my life depended on it.
So what to do?
I think my personal preference is to simply ignore them and their like. To treat them as the irrelevance they obviously are. 51 weeks of the year the nice quiet middle class heterosexual world I live in is oblivious and uncaring of their "issues and grievances". One weekend of the year we do a "runner" out of London.
The best bet I think is to therefore ignore and avoid them:
never set foot in a gay club or bar
never socialise with any gay person
never offer help to any gay person
never allow our children to mix with gay people
never work with a gay person
never play sport with or against a gay person
never enter into political debate with gay people or express a view on gay issues
never lend support to gay issues
never support a gay charity or pressure group
never give time to listen to the gay community view
never allow our children to be educated on homosexuality
However at no point discriminate against gay people, just simply ignore them and pretend they aren't there.
Personally that seems to be the best solution. They can push for whatever right they think they need or deserve, they can enshrine whatever anti-discrimination law they want.
But in the end you can't force engagement with the gay community on anyone. So we can just ignore them and treat them as an unimportant but vocal minority on which we have to spend no time at all.
The nice thing is that there isn't a single thing any gay activist can do about it is there?
As a fellow Conservative, who is straight (for the record) yet has had many gay friends and also the odd (as in number, not mental state) relatives. I've found many of your views rather quaint in measure but also sadly bigoted.
You certainly are not a Tory in my sense of the word; a tolerant proper One Nation liberal but the old fashioned reactionary thankfully that have been put out to pasture as an anachronism ahead of their time.
I think if our paths ever crossed I would avoid you, my Great Uncle lived with my other 'uncle' for 30 years and was a figure in the community greatly admired and loved; he was a natural bon viveur and enriched the lives of many people who knew him. He lived in a time for many, many years at a time of real bigotry, he could have been locked up for his sexuality, he was called up in action too serving with distinction in WW2.
Kind of makes a mockery of today's issues. He never spoke of any of the bigotry, he was never one to flaunt it mainly because well; he'd be locked up.
Guy, accept that the Tories have not always had the best tunes for every occasion, accept it, deal with it and live with it.
If you cannot, might I suggest silence?
Some of us Tories are genuine and want to be inclusive to start to heal many divisive issues but that is not carte blanche for every demand and 'right'. If you read the polemic from those that currently 'serve' us; save your fire for them.
I have had numerous gay friends and colleagues over the years as well as running into the leftie gay fundamentalists you just want to drop a large solid object on from a great height.
However this weekends debates has cleared a few things up for me.
I genuinely don't want same sex adoption placed on an equal footing with heterosexual, same sex marriage, IVF treatment for Lesbians (funded on the public purse), gay sex-ed in classrooms etc. etc.
I've stated many times I fully support equality in employment, legal rights and protection for the gay community.
However I'm not going to meekly sit by and be told I'm a bigot or a homophobe by some gay fundamentalist because I won't roll over and accept every one of their demands.
So what are my options? My simple one is to now say, I'm sick to death with the gay community and will from this point on have nothing to do with them. They can have their full freedoms and do what the hell they like, so long as they stay fully out of my life.
That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I do think it is sad that we need a law to ensure people are treated equal. After al the time we have evolved and all the bad things we have done to each other, we are still struggling to see each other as brothers and sisters.
I do also think that when trying to prevent discrimination of a section of society it is going to be very hard not to discriminate against another, it is a real balancing act.
I do understand Guy’s comments, but what would happen if the one day that he needs help, the only person who could help was gay, what would he do?
As for Bandwagon Cameron - Anything for a vote - I wonder what things he is against?
In Unity
MA
never socialise with any gay person
never offer help to any gay person
never allow our children to mix with gay people
never work with a gay person
never play sport with or against a gay person
and then say "However at no point discriminate against gay people...."
I think you need to look up "discriminate" in a dictionary.
You also claim that you would never vote for the BNP as they are a "racist" organisation.
However, this approach you're suggesting is exactly the same as the segregationist laws that
existed in the American South before the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-semitic laws in Nazi
Germany and occupied Europe, and which were the cornerstones of Apartheid in South Africa.
You are simply talking about someone's sexuality, rather than the colour of their skin or their
Ethnicity. So, on the one hand you disagree with one type of discrimination, but are advocating it
on another. Can you not see the hypocracy of your comments?
I think you should ask yourself what you find so offensive about gay people? Why should they be
ignored or excluded out-of-hand. You state it's because you are offended by the "radical gay agenda"
but it is clearly something deeper for you. Not all gay people are radical activists, or believe in a radical agenda.
They just want the right to be able to live their life quietly, with dignity, enjoying the same rights
as any other citizen. The right to have equal consideration for a job, the right to be free from harassment
or bullying, the right to marry the person they love. These are basic human rights, not the whims of
some rabid radical agenda. Gay people don't want SPECIAL treatment, they just want EQUAL treatment.
Just the same as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and other civil rights activists wanted.
The reason the radical activists are so noisy is because there is still a lot of endemic prejudice
against homosexuals in all areas of life. If gay people were treated equally and afforded the same
protections and opportunities that other minorities are offered, then I can guarentee that the radicals
would be quiet, and you would be left in peace. Unfortunately, in order to promote change, people
have to make a noise. That was true with the Suffragettes, the Labour Movement in the 19thC, the
Levellers in the 17thC, the US Civil Rights movement, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa,
the Democracy Movement in China, the Independence movement in the Indian Raj....
It's not an overly liberal standpoint to want to treat everyone equal, regardless of WHAT they
are. It is saddening to hear people like you who are trying despirately to pretend they are not
aggressive bigots, but who quite clearly ARE. If someone is a bigot, then fair enough. But people like you who espouse bigotry by try to pretend they are saying something else are the really insidious and unpleasant ones.
I'd look again at the BNP, if I were you. It sounds as if you'd be right up their street.
But equal treatment on whose terms?
Giving blood is not a basic human right, neither is lowering the age of consent.
However the Blood Transfusion Service is forever advertising for "new blood" so to speak, on radio the adverts are heard on a daily basis.
If people didn't offer to donate, I suspect it would be people like you, Mike, with all due respect, who would be mithering on about how "selfish" they were.
The largest transmission route for HIV infections in this country for AT LEAST ten years has been Male to Female. it currently stands at 44%? Ergo the largest group of HIV carriers in this country are permitted to give blood as an when they chose.
So maybe you wanna pop down the clinic and get a HIV test just in case.
Why should there be a difference between the heterosexual and homosexual age of consent? If there was a movement to lower the homosexual age of consent beyond that of the hetersexual age, then I'd be as opposed to that as anyone else. It's not about special treatment, it's about not being singled out to be treated differently.
The blood-donation issue is not about giving blood as a human right, it is about the immediate assumption that a gay man who is sexually active is HIV+ and therefore should not give blood. In actuality it is because there is a CHANCE that a gay man who is sexually active is HIV+, and therefore it is easier to exclude all such people from giving blood. However, there are many heterosexual people who are sexually active and who engage in unprotected sex. So again it is placing a blanket assumption on one class of people and not on another, based solely on their sexuality.
There shouldn't be a need to see things in anyone's "terms" because the rights of any one group should be enjoyed by all people in all other groups. Full stop.
God isn't just punishing the gays you know.
But I find the whole gay movement an aggravation that I would prefer to ignore.
So my choice to remove gay people from my life and ignore any gay person I come into contact with is unacceptable? So you are going to force my engagementnow are you? Thanks for proving the point about gay activism being "in your face".
a gay person can still go wherever they chose, do whatever they want to do and say whatever they want. I'm not proposing anything to remove basic rights and freedoms. I'm just saying, "enough, I've had enough with the lot of you and will now live my life as if none of you exist."
I won't vote for or support measures that supress the gay minority but neither will I vote for or support more "gay rights". I will simply ignore them as a group.
That is my free choice
"Again I'll state I'm opposed to any form of discrimination in the workplace, in favour of full protection in law for gay people"
and
"So my choice to ..... ignore any gay person I come into contact with"
So what if a work colleague of yours was gay and you chose to ignore him/her. They weren't ranting about gay issues, they just happened to be a colleague you had to work with and happened to be gay. How does that fit in with your support of anti-discriminatory laws? Could you really explain that "Sorry, I'm against any form of discrimination, but don't want to talk to you or work with you because you're gay."
Could you explain that paradox?
If you're talking about gay ACTIVISTS then fair enough. If you want to ignore someone campaigning for gay rights, or the right to marry their partner, or equal protections under the law, then fine. no one should be FORCED to engage with ANY activist, be they involved in human rights, politics, animal rights, the environment, etc etc. But what you are discribing in your peoposed activities is to ignore gay PEOPLE, not gay activists. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Not every gay man you meet will say "Hi, my name's John, and I WANT THE RIGHT TO....." 99.9% of the time he'll just say, "Hi, my name's John."
I'm 100% opposed to any institutional discrimination, but who I choose to socialise with or communicate with is entirely up to me.
In the example you riase I dare say I'd do my job and communicate with only as necessary. But I woldn't be interested in social chats in any way. Purely business then no thanks would be my approach.
You say not all gays are activists and that's right but enough are if only in mental support and I'd prefer my life to have them involved in it as far as is possible. That is my free choice.
Just don't try to convince yourself that you're not bigotted, because you plainly are. Which is fine, not everyone is made the same or thinks the same. But no-one can claim to be non-discriminatory if they follow the statement that they are non-discriminatory with an exception clause.....
In one breath 'I'm 100% opposed to any institutional discrimination' but in the next 'who I choose to socialise with or communicate with is entirely up to me'.
You are actively discriminating because of someones sexuality and no amount of twisting or turning can change that fact. Ironically you say all this about ignoring anyone who happens to be gay in all aspects of your life, yet you choose to spend your time doing the opposite here on the LL.
Who I speak to is a personal issue, who my company chooses to employ is an institutional issue.
I'll fully support the same employment rights etc. for gays so long as my free rights to decide who I mix with and socialise with are left to me.
But then you know that's the reality don't you Bill, there's nothing you can do about it and it annoys you
And to be honest Guy, today you are no more annoying than my son who is playing quietly in his daybed. I'm getting on with my work or commenting elsewhere on the LL and occassionally reading your comments to see what your next ludicrous argument is. I presume, minus the son in the daybed, you are doing the same. I openly admit to having spent some time cleaning coffee off my monitor when you made the comment about my position in society, but it wasn't through anger or annoyance.
There is no difference between refusing to work with someone because they are gay, and refusing to work with someone bacuse they are black, or a woman, or disabled, or jewish. People were told to "not engage" with Jewish people and to boycott Jewish shops in Nazi Germany. Irrespective of whether the jews owning the shops were active Zionists or not.
It is possible to be gay and not to be a member of an activist group that promotes gay causes. Just as it was possible to be a black american, but not be a member of the Nation of Islam.
If you are sick of gay activists, then fair enough. But please don't try to use that as a means of legitimising discrimination against gay people in general.
So for simplicity I'll just choose to not engage with any.
They can still do whatever it is they want to do, still go where they want to and still be afforded the protection of the law to live how they wish.
I'll just not involve myself at any social level with any of them.
I tis pretty clear from the comments over the weekend that the views of my social group and the gay activists views are incompatable, so I choose to ignore them and give them no aid.
Are you telling me it's my moral obligation to talk to people I don't want to? It would be if I was in politics, but since I have decided not to ever stand for office that leaves me free to decide who I do and dont talk to doesnt it?
You state that you wouldn't vote for the BNP. But doesn't your stance here equate to "I don't like the BNP, therefore I will refuse to talk to ANY person in the UK on the off-chance that they MIGHT be a member of the BNP?".
I'm trying to suggest the idea that discriminating against a GROUP is not valid if it's based on the fact that you don't agree with the activities or politics of a small number of people within that group.
That's sad, and you obviously have some deep-rooted reason to hate gay people, so it's not really worth discussing the matter further. Sadly.
You can mix with whomever you want to and so can I.
In other words exactly what I supported in my post.
So, ironically, Guy M has been engaging with a gay non-activist. A shame he would not be willing to offer me the same civil courtesy that I would offer him were I a work colleague of his, or someone he met socially. That's sad, especially coming from someone who appears to have a stance against racial discrimination and the views of the BNP.
"Indeed LL aside that's exactly what I intend to do.
Get any comment on the doorstep in relation to gay rights and my stock reply will be "I have no opinion" and move on."
Personally I find it very liberating to say to all those "activists" on LL "stick your issues over gay rights, I'm just going to ignore every last one of you in life" and have them realise there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
But, Guy, You are NOT ignoring them are you? You keep coming onto these "gay" threads, and did so all weekend.
If you want to ignore "them" (what would you do by the way if one of your kids turns out to be gay? - Ignore him or her?)
Or perhaps, given your intense interest in this topic you are contemplating "coming out" yourself?
You've said this several times now, Guy. You still seem to be here.
Get any comment on the doorstep in relation to gay rights and my stock reply will be "I have no opinion" and move on.
You are like a mixture of Peter Hitchins, Melanie Phillips and Mr heffer, rolled into one.
Perhaps instead of keep ranting here for nothing you could send samples of your work to the Daily Mail and Mail On Sunday, and you could act as holiday relief to Mr Hitchins and Ms Phillips.
I am sure the lobelia-growing, Middle-Englanders would be spellbound by your rhetoric
Personally I think the endless yelling for more and more gay "rights" over the last few days have been rants, but it's a matter of political perspective I guess.
My perspective and those of my social grouping (middle England as you put it) largely think of Tatchell and all that follow him a bunch of nutjobs best ignored all of the time.
Proposing exactly that, nothing discriminatory, just ignoring the gay activist community and ignoring all their campaigns and issues is unacceptabel to all you left wing lovies isn't it?
So we can't disagree as that makes us bigots, we have to just sit silently and nod every now and then as the obvious "truth" is force fed us by someone in a pink hat on a pride march?
No, how about instead we just very very simply ignore you all. We ignore your issues, we ignore your concerns, we ignore your business interests, ww ignore you socially and we ignore you in everyday life.
A perfect solution and as i said there's not a single thing you can do about that is there? Which of course is what will really annoy.
Gay rights? No thanks and I'll sit quietly and ignore every last one of you until a Tory government is in when it too will ignore every last screaming, prancing, in your face gay activist as well.
Perfect.
(b) An attitude of ignoring gay people along the lines of "ignore your concerns, we ignore your business interests, ww ignore you socially and we ignore you in everyday life." is EXACTLY why activists arise in the first place. So don't complain about Peter Tatchell, it's people like you, and policies like those of the last Tory government that CREATED Peter Tatchell and his colleagues.
How exactly do you intend to police that?
A fine if I don't speak to someone?
A fine if I don't go to a gay pub on anight out but choose a normal pub?
A fine if I refuse to support any gay rights issue?
A fine if I don't want to have my kids mix with gays?
Do go ahead and explain under what police state you intend to force me to mix with anyone?
You're free to ignore whoever you want to, or refuse to socialise with whoever you want to for whatever reason. My point is simply that if you act like that don't try to pretend that you are against discrimination. If you act in one way with someone based on WHAT they are rather than WHO they are, then you are being discriminatory. In that case you are no different to a member of the BNP who doesn't like mixing with a person socially simply because they are of Pakistani origin. No one would want to FORCE them to socialise, but similarly that person could not claim that they weren't racist.
Just he honest with yourself, that's all. If you can't stand gays and don't want to mix with them, then fine. I imagine Nick Griffin has similar feelings about black and asian people.
What are you going to do, build a bomb shelter in your garden and hide from them?
I'd far rather use holiday time on holiday rather than political glad handing.
Perhaps we could force them to wear some sort of symbol on their clothing? I've always liked stars and I quite like the colour yellow. A yellow star would make them easily identifiable from a distance and then your plan might just work!
I couldn't but as soon as I did, just a complete ignore would follow.
No discrimination, no angry words, no opposition and no agreement.
Just a simple, "your group is an irrelevance to my life and I prefer to ignore you and whatever issues you are pushing this week".
Funny though isn't it that, as I pointed out in the original post ("pro gay diatribes against anyone and anything that doesn't fall into line with the "gay activist" view of the world"), take the line of I don't want anything to do with you, do what you want but don't involve or bother me and we get replies with thinly veiled Nazi analogies.
Argument just won I think
There was nothing thinly veiled about my comment at all, it was very clear what I was refering to as Colin has demonstrated below. You are singling out a portion of society because of their sexuality and instructing that they should be ignored politically, socially and in the workplace. This is so similar to the actions of a certain political party, you may as well suggest marking every gay person with a yellow star or indeed, a pink triangle.
Your argument isn't really an argument, it is the pathetic opinions of a small-minded individual who is so sure that he speaks for the middle classes of Britain, so sure that others share his extreme views that with no sense of irony actually believes he is debating. If what you have written is percieved by you to be debate I'd suggest the Conservative party have made a grave mistake recently and they should be more careful how they select candidates in future.
Then again if a torrent of bigotted tripe is debate, you are truely a master debator Guy.
I'm saying of my own free will that's what I intent to do. What everyone else does is up to them. That's the beauty of a free society isn't it Bill. Just as they can aggravate everyone around them and push their gay rights issues in peoples faces, others can say "go away, I want nothing to do with you".
That you should seek to argue I'm wrong or not at liberty to choose who I mix with and socialise with on a personal level indicates just how far over the top the gay lobby has gone. Perhaps we could call you an anti middle class, anti heterosexual bigot? It seems about right.
Personally I find your small minded defence of the gay lobby perfectly fits you into the area of society you represent. And yes socialists are thieves.
And for the record Guy, you have absolutely no idea what area of society I represent, pretending that you do is making you look dafter than you already look. I would have a bit of job on my hands if I was anti-middle class for starters, but please continue. With every comment you are managing to become more of a joke, sort of like the crazy bloke who wanders around the town centre with a sandwich board proclaiming 'The End is Nigh!'
It's clear from your background you are very pro gay, fine that's you choice.
I though am not very pro gay and that's my free choice as is who I mix with and socialise with.
We haven't got a socialist thought police force yet despite all Labour's attempts, so you'll just have to live with the fact that I have free choice in this area.
What do you think you know about my background? What has my background got to do with the gay community at all? And why do you presume I am pro gay?
I have no problem with anyone who is gay, never have had, never will do, but how is that being pro gay? I don't actively encourage anyone to join the gay community, I don't proclaim to know a huge number of gay people, but I am happy enough to live side by side with anyone. I don't see the big deal about calling gay marriage what it is, marriage. I don't see the big deal if gay people wish to have a parade or an annual get together, but that doesn't make me pro gay. It just means I'm an average person who accepts the reality that the world is not solely hetrosexual, I'm comfortable with my own life choices and I don't see this as something my kids need to shielded from. Its just life.
This is bizarre really Guy, you claim to know my 'type' but you have made comment after comment about me which shows you have just made assumptions about my 'type' based loosely on any political beliefs that again, you assume I have.
I wouldn't be so sure about the Labour thought police though, but that is a whole other debate and just my personal opinion.
In favour of gay marriage
In favour of gay adoption
In gay of gay sex-ed
etc.
as "pro-gay".
The fact that you can't see how anyone might disagree with you unless they are bigoted explains why my social group can't abide your views.
The fact that you also support legalised theft through the tax system just adds to my view of you.
You're like a stuck record, bringing up the 'thief' statement as if it is something to wear as a badge of honour because you vote Conservative. Yes, I got annoyed when you said it a week ago, but now its making you look a bit, well silly. Besides which, if you popped your head out of your backside once in every while you might read my views rather than presuming you know my views by the fact that I am Labour minded. The fact that you automatically view me as scum for my political views says a lot more about you than it does about me.
There were high taxes before New Labour got into power (and incase its escaped your notice, a government I don't support) and there will be high taxes when Labour are removed from office. Get over it or move country.
Being in favour and not being bothered by something as it doesn't make a lot of difference, is that the same thing then Guy? Why should I be bothered if two people of the same sex want to be married? I am bothered about kids in care simply because I was one, but you have no clue about kids in care do you? Sex Ed, why would I want my children to be blinkered about the world they live in? Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand, thats not my problem or the problem of anyone who is gay.
Define me as pro gay if it makes you feel better, or as anything you like, it really doesn't make that much difference in the scale of things. I don't have a problem with homosexuality, it isn't something I'd rant against for 3 or 4 days solid as you have and I'm not going to bring my kids up to be ignorant of the world that surrounds them.
Agreeing or disagreeing with gay issues isn't what makes you a bigot Guy, it is your use of language, the way you construct your argument and your general manner to anyone who is gay and replies to you. I very much doubt your social group agrees with you 100%, but then I'm not part of your local group thankfully. I can't repeat your mantra about 'your sort' as I happen to have a good many friends who are high earning professionals, kids in private school etc. so it would be insulting to them to group you in with them. But then you have assumed quite a bit about my social and professional circle because of my political beliefs haven't you Guy which again says more about you than me.
How much sleep do you think I am getting at the moment?
"I'm not "instructing that they should be ignored politically, socially and in the workplace".
Yet you first stated that you would:
"never socialise with any gay person
never offer help to any gay person
never allow our children to mix with gay people
never work with a gay person
never play sport with or against a gay person
never enter into political debate with gay people or express a view on gay issues
never lend support to gay issues
never support a gay charity or pressure group
never give time to listen to the gay community view
never allow our children to be educated on homosexuality"
Sounds like you're suggesting that gay people should be "ignored politically, socially and in the workplace" to me. Or maybe I'm missing something....
Everyone can make their own mind up how they live their lives.
"I think my personal preference is to simply ignore them and their like"
and
"Personally that seems to be the best solution"
as a general response to the rhetorical question of:
"How to fight this battle though? Do we all join the BNP to put a stop to your nonsense? I don't think I could vote for a racist party if my life depended on it.
So what to do?"
If you can't understand I clearly said the solution was my own personal choice then you seem to have lost the plot.
From a "personal" point of view I could understand if others did exactly the same, but that would be their "personal" choice.
I don't like you Bill, I don't like your views and I wouldn't ever support your gay rights opinions. I don't want gay couples seen as the same at heterosexual couples in terms of adoption and I don't want marriage to include same sex couples. My kids won't be exposed to sex-ed on homosexuality and I'll shield them from your views as long as possible.
I would fully expect loads of gay activists to be yelling on LL, don't make the mistake though of thinking that I don't have a lot of support in my social group.
Every time your argument is backed into a corner, all we hear is a torrent of what you like or dislike. No substance, no real addition to the debate, just the same old tired remarks and now the most childish comment I have ever witnesses on this blog 'I don't like you Bill' What do you want me to do? Run and tell the teacher? Does this mean you won't share your sweets with me at lunch time?
Grow up Guy, this is a political blog, not a school playground.
All I have seen on LL over the weekend is a lot of apologists for the gay movement sling diatribes of "bigot", "homophobe" and "discrimination" at anyone who doesn't agree with their own narrow point of view.
So in return my views are the counter. I don't want same couple marriage; same couple adoption as a priority over heterosexual couple adoption; IVF treatment for Lesbians etc. etc. as I want to protect the nature of my country and society as it is and not have it turn into the immoral society you and other gay rights apologists would have it become.
So from a poitical point of view, my personal view is I detest your views and would go a long way to avoid you in real life. As you've sen from some other Tory posters they feel the same way.
The funny thing about LL is it brings some of you left wingers in effect face to face with right wing posters. You spend your time feeling you have the moral high ground and are amazed that actually those of us on the right don't believe here's anyting moral at all about your views.
As for the "Run and tell the teacher" jibe, say what you want as far as I'm concerned, politics at this level is a personal issue. I and many other Tories can't abide socialists and what they stand for. I wouldn't want a socialist as a friend or social contact and reading the nasty ideology that you come out with makes me all the more determined to see your lot removed from power asap.
You want a nice abstract ideological debate? You aren't going to get it when you and others like you post the pro gay views you have over the weekend. I and others like me are fundamentally oppossed to your views. If you don't like the strength of feeling of those oppossed to you then maybe you shouldn't be involved in politics.
Yes this is a political blog and the opposing political view isn't going to play nice and meekly accept the policies you push that we feel damage the fabric of our country. Politics is a nasty game Bill, get real.
I can't take you seriously Guy. Your arguments are full of contradictions and you've gone from someone who has 'many gay friends' to revealing yourself for what you really are.
What you are really angry about is that the world has changed inspite of opinions like yours and you can not deal with it. Instead you hide behind a mask of respectability which you call 'middle class' and try you best to group other Conservative minds in with you. I know many who vote Conservative and although I may not agree with their politics, they at least debate without resorting to the sort of nasty bile you spew everywhere.
Please continue with your 'moral' high ground, I don't see hoardes of people rushing to agree with you. And as I have said, your dislike of me matters not one jot. You are correct though, if we met in real life it would be a very short conversation once we became aware of who the other one was. But that will never happen Guy as you continue to cowardly hide behind anonymity whilst you spout the World According to Guy. You really are a pathetic little man.
So, Guy, what part of thinking what gay people do is immoral is it that makes you not a bigot or homophobe?
The teaching of gay sex-ed to school children
The undermining of marriage by allowing same sex marriage just to spite the heterosexuals
Promotion of a drop in age of consent to 14
You throw the "bigot" and "homophobe" tag around all you like, it's your only reply when you run into someone who ideologically won't just cower in the face of your pro gay policies.
Go on then, Guy. Tell me how my choice to marry the man I love undermines your marriage to your wife.
You wanted the same legal protection as married couples and you got it through CPs.
But that's not enough is it? You have to have exactly the same as everyone else and you won't stop whineing about it until you get it.
You just can't and won't accept that heterosexual couples might like the idea that they have a historic institution to themselves can you?
You could set up whatever the hell you like in the gay community and I wouldn't want to copy it just for the sake of it. I'm told it's not fair heterosexual couples can't have CPs. Why? I don't want a CP, I don't need to copy everything the gay community does or has.
This is another example of why I'm sick to death with your "community" and hope that I never have to interact with it again in real life.
But even if that weren't true - indeed, even if a gay couple were religiously married, as some churches would happily do - how does that undermine your vows with your wife?
You just can't and won't accept that heterosexual couples might like the idea that they have a historic institution to themselves can you?
Separate but equal isn't, basically. Your argument is no different from segregationists in the US who couldn't understand why black people wanted to belong to the same institutions as white people - wasn't it enough that they had their own black institutions that no white person wanted to join?
Apparently the traditional word for this 'marriage' has something about it that means it absolutely has to be used by some people to mean something else entirely.
Using the work 'marriage' for same sex relationships, won't raise the status of those relationships, it will lower the status of 'marriage'.
But I think you know that - the agenda here is not to give something to homosexuals, it to deny something to heterosexuals. Debasing 'marriage' to the extent that it is a meaningless.
"Marriage" was debased long before "same sex partnerships" were introduced. Heterosexual couples used to marry with the declaration that they would commit to each other through better or worse, richer or poorer etc. Now the mantra is "until something better comes along" or "until I get bored".
Are divorce rates so high because of homosexual couples? Of course not. Far too many heterosexual married couples are unable to understand that every marriage will have its good times and its bad times. Today, when those bad times come, far to many reach out to the the divorce courts to end their unions, rather than working through their problems.
Marriage has indeed been debased, but the blame is not on some mythical gay agenda, but those heterosexual couples who don't understand the significance of entering into a marriage. When they go into marriage with the idea that if things don't work out they'll just get a divorce, THEY take away from the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Let me ask you a question... If your gay next door neighbours got married, which of the following would apply?
1. Having gay married neighbours would make you work harder to ensure that your marriage survived the bad times?
2. Having gay married neighbours would make you work less to save your marriage?
3. Your commitment to your partner remain the same irrespective of your gay neighbours' partnership status?
For most people the answer is 3.
If a bloke told me he was married and that he was gay, I would ask how his wife felt about it.
If someone says they are married, my first question would probably be 'do you have kids'.
If someone asks about my partner, I correct them and say 'you mean my wife'.
'Marriage' is a useful term as it is - you want to hijack it for some other purpose - I say get your own word.
Again, there are parallels to the segregationists. "Are we allowed to have a word that describes a life long commitment that a white man and woman make to each other?"
Your second paragraph puts the lie to what you say your first paragraph. You clearly don't want any word to distinguish between normal and homosexual relationships - you compare such a distinction to racism.
What will your next target be? Try to ban the words 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' so there is no language to describe the difference?
Are you in a minority of one, or is there general support for your point of view among 'labour minded' people?
Both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships - from affectionate friendship to romantic love - are entirely normal: to suggest otherwise is ill-informed and grossly offensive.
Sex is about reproduction - that is normality.
Anything else you do with your genitals for pleasure is just entertainment.
I'm not going to waste my time with you if you are going to make things up.
If you object to my comparing it to racism, why not explain how it's different? Why was the segregationists definition of marriage as between two people of the same race wrong - after all, that was how it had been for a very long time - and your definition of it as between two people of different sexes right?
You clearly have a conclusion in mind, and will do what ever it takes to get there.
Googling 'marriage service' gave this...
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/marriage/marriage.html
Which includes this.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.
But, of course, the anglican marriage service is no match for your superior knowledge/experience is it?
I can't make you say you are wrong - but you know that you are, and I know that you know you are.
My aunt was married in a registry office. No religion involved, not even Anglicanism. She has not had any children with her husband. Is that not marriage, because it doesn't fit your narrow definition?
I don't think I really have anything to add - the information is here, it is for you learn from it.
Thats one ofthe thingsI loveabout thissite- I get torehurse all myanti-socialist arguments,and inevery casefindthattheyare unassailable- and itisall onpublicrecord!
Opposition to marriage between two people of the same sex cannot be compared to racism because it is not based on a hatred for the people concerned. The vast majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage do not do it out of hate for homosexuals, they do it out of love for a centuries old institution that do not wish to see diluted in any way.
Comparing opposition to same-sex marriage to racism or some such similar filth is pretty offensive really.
They would have said 'why are you trying to redefine marriage to suit your own agenda'.
It's quite disgusting that you seem to think racism is wrong, yet you're quite prepared to tolerate homophobia.
They're both exactly the same thing. The people who were against interracial marriage are exactly the same as those who oppose same-sex marriage now. They both want to restrict marriage to people who are like them.
That's outrageous. I have no time for homophobia, please take that back.
I feel like I am being victimised here just because I have mentioned I'm a Catholic and you clearly have some issues with my religion.
Seriously, please do not go so far as to accuse another Labour activist of tolerating homophobia. I hope there is no-one in our party that tolerates any kind of prejudice.
I am very offended that as a man I am not allowed to be pregnant - why is pregnancy restricted to women?
So what I propose is that the definition of 'pregnancy' be extended to include men who currently have a pregnant partner!
There every one is happy now - we can all be pregnant.
You can try to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' and then apply it to a ceremony that involves a couple other than a man and woman, but it won't be 'marriage' in the current sense of the word.
So, go and get your own word - ok?
It happens it plenty of countries around the world and the sky didn't fall in. It will happen here too soon enough.
A large chunk of the middle class heterosexual mainstream see you prancing gay activism and have a little internal shudder.
Take what legal rights you think you want, but the true measure of whether you've been accepted is in the views of the public at large.
Get "married", it doesn't mean we think you are married.
Adopt a child, doesn't mean that we think you should
Push all the mad wacko gay rights agenda you want, doesn't mean we in any way support you.
I asked my eldest girl whether she has had any sex-ed on gay relationships and she said "no and ewwwww". A nice middle class grammar with nice middle class parents and no nasty gay sex-ed for the kids.
You think you've won with a few laws, how misguided you truly are.
You can pretend to be married if you like.
Changing the rules on who can vote doesn't change the definition of the word voter.
Marriage means something well understood and quite specific (whether you choose to believe it or not). If you hijack it for another purpose, a new word would be needed to mean what marriage currently means.
So why inconveniencea huge number of people by stealing the word 'marriage', when you can perfectly easily make up your own word to mean whatever it is that you want it to mean.
There's no difference between changing the rules on who can vote, and changing the rules on who can marry.
Most racist segregation was not based on hatred: a number of genuine ("white") philanthropists put a lot of time and money into providing separate decent facilities of "other races".
Because they dod not, of course, want to see the centuries-old institutions that they loved diluted in any way.
The analogy between them and the "separate but equal" mob here is obvious - and in either case, people who do not fit the defined categories are marginalised.
I don't: my impression of some of the white south Africans that i knew in the 1960s was that they were genuinely concerned to do their best - just frightfully blinkered by upbringing and society. I feel exactly the same about many people who do genuinely support most gay equality issues, but are opposed to gay marriage.
As a man I can't attend a female only swim session at my local pool. Shoud I complain about that or just let the wmone have their own space?
As someone at the 40 age mark, I'm not welcome on 18-30 holidays. Should I complain at that or just let them have their own space?
You don't seek equality you seek an egalitarian society that I would descibe as a nightmare.
Marriage is not about segregation, stopping you going anywhere, stopping you enjoying full legal rights. It's about a heterosexual institution and a lot of us wold like it to stay that way.
As always if anyone disagrees with you gay activist in your fact type approach we are bigots, homophobes and no better than deep south USA racists.
You wonder why I have concluded I wouldn't throw you a lifebelt if you were drowning? I am heartily sick to death of your "community" and how it promotes itself.
As I said, do what you want, get whatever law you want passed, I will just ignore every last one of you going forward personally, professionaly and socially and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
'We'd like it to stay that way' is nothing but exclusivity for exclusivity's sake. Personally, I do believe that Mecca shouldn't be closed to non-Muslims, but that's not under the British government. Female-only swim sessions are there for good reasons. Heterosexual-only marriage isn't - and marriage is somewhat more important than swimming, too.
Do you want to explain just how you differ from segregationists in the deep south, since you seem to be unhappy with the comparison? They wanted to restrict marriage to people of the same race, because they thought mixed-race pairings were unnatural, against God, and undermining the institution of marriage. You have the same problems with same-sex marriage.
there isn't a damn thing you can do about it
You keep repeating this as some sort of mantra, as if we actually care what you do. You're a dying breed.
As in no matter how many laws you pass the only way acceptance truly comes about is through general public acceptance.
I'm pretty sure, given the circles I move in, there's no acceptance for the gay taliban view you and others have been pushing the last few days
Well, Guy. I rather feel a lot of us on here, ranging from real Labour supporters all the way down to ardent Blairites don't much like you.
So why not stop all the grief?
Why keep posting on a left wing site and go and join a Tory one -or the Melonie Phillips Fan Club.
I very much doubt that some right-wing blogs would allow a true left winger to keep posting bilious outpourings like the ones you are allowed to get away with on here.
It just seems a bit silly and a bit pointless - and dare I say it? - just a little suspicious. here we have an allegedly "succesful businessman" toiling away to provide his children with a private education, and your other ostentatious declarations of wealth and success, who spent much of the weekend on this site complaining about gay issues, when it was made perfectly clear at the end of last week that it would be the main focus of the site over the weekend. Yet you returned again and again, like a dog to it's own vomit.
Some of your statements are so risible, I am embarrassed for you ("I don't like you Bill") - have you ever met him?, and that you wouldn't have dealings with gays - how do you know your GP isn't gay, or your bank manager, or some of your staff, or a policeman if you needed his help?. Not all gays are ballet dancers, window dressers and MPs, Guy.
How do you know what they get up to in the privacy of their own homes? And why do you endlessley go on about it?
Yes I was here this weekend on and of as I fundamentally find you and your views loathsome. You don't like the personal attacks and then write "Yet you returned again and again, like a dog to it's own vomit.". As consistant as usual.
Your political views and policies are vomit Alan and I'm looking forward to your party being kicked from office very soon now.
I don't like Bill and I have very good reason. I wouldn't spend 5 minutes in the company of a socialist like him or you in real life once I knew the views you hold. Your views are to me poison, but then you can't grasp anyone could think socialism is a disgusting ideology could you?
As for the not mixing with gays, given the choice and knowledge I won't. Before this weekend I was fairly ambivalent about it all, but reading the stuff you pro gay lefties come out with, as I've said, it's a straight fight with no room for people in the middle. So thanks for forcing me to take a stand and adopt a position of rejecting any and all gay rights proposals going forward.
I couldn''t give a damn what you believe I do in real life. Fortunately I don't have to mix with your like so believe what you will and I can rest easy with the reality.
As Sarah Palin would say - "You betcha".
In some ways its good sport to see Tory thinking at its most simplistic and bigoted. But when that becomes the norm the moderates on either side head for the door.
Thanks for pushing back against Guy's offensive and persistent trolling
You're not "moderate" ATT, you're a clear comitted socialist and the notion that someone like you and me are going to get on in any way is a joke. I and others are deeply anti your left wing ideology and we don't want to get on thanks, want we want is to kick you and yours out of power for as long as possible as you have nothing to offer the UK public.
I've said before any time Alex wants to ban me and other right wingers from the site then go for it.
As for the "In some ways its good sport to see Tory thinking at its most simplistic and bigoted" as we've seen the simplistic and bigoted Labour party in office for 12 years now I think we get the message about you as well.
In truth there are plenty of people out there who are willing to give the Conservatives the benefit of doubt that they've evolved since they were last in power. And yes, that includes those of us that are part of the LGBT community. A contributory reason for that willingness is Labour's record over the past 12 years. The corruption, the dishonesty, the spin (much of which has your fingerprints all over it Alistair)
If the Conservatives haven't really changed it will be apparent for all to see, and they will only last one term in office before being booted out. But for now it seems that voters are so disgusted with your Labour party, that they're willing to give the Conservatives a chance. Care to take a guess as to who's fault that is Alistair?
The main issues are now not so much more legal change but implementation of the law which exists.
95% of the population of the planet ISN'T gay. Get over it.
to enjoy the same rights as the majority? The majority of people in the UK are White, so
should a non-white person just shut up and "get over it" if they are discriminated against
because of their colour?
By this analogy anything that is not representative of at least 50% of the population should
be ignored. Does that mean that we should stop treating people with cancer because cancer victims
are only a minority proportion of all hospital admissions in the UK? What if your son or daughter,
if you have any, was mentally or physicically handicapped, or had special learning needs. Would it
be OK for the schools to say, "Well, sorry, 95% of the children are not like that, so Jonny can sit
in the corner on his own all day and we'll just ignore him." Would you be OK with that as a parent?
Just because someone isn't the same as the "majority" doesn't mean they're of less worth.
I wonder if you'd be so keen with the "Oh, just get over it!" message if you were part of the
minority being discriminated against.
Of course not. And this, I think should be an important theme of the next election. It is Labour who is pushing for equality, yet there are too many conservatives (little 'c') in society who are putting a brake on what should be done.
Take "gay adoption" as an example. The whole situation is ludicrous. I should not need to remind the adults here how easy it is for most heteros to become parents. There are no checks about a couple's ability to bring up a child, no check on their home nor employment. Nothing. But adoption for a hetero couple is different. Ask anyone who has adopted and they'll tell you about the form filling and the interviews, the inspections and the trial weekends. Adoption agencies are careful. So why cannot the same care be applied to gay couples? There is no reason why not, and hence there is no reason for anyone to object to gay adoption. In the end the child will have a loving, caring home to live in. That is the aim of adoption.
Perhaps we should get Haughty Hewitt to leap aboard the bandwaggon to be gay friendly. Just a thought...
I find his ranting posts a complete turn-off. He was, i recall the "political editor" of Eddie Shah's "Today" newspaper. It didn't last long. It is just hard to take his posturing and pontificating seriously.
Go back to Forum, young master, before it's too late!
"When Dave is around, inconvenient facts tend to get airbrushed."
Priceless.
As if...
You have had some very thoughtful and insightful posts this week on LGBT issues this week (notably Wes Streeting and Peter Tatchell). Then there's Bradshaw and now this garbage!
Genuine campaigners for gay rights celebrate the fact that over parties have been influenced by Labour's legislation; all credit rightly to Labour.
Yet your politicians (and their media cronies) still want to score petty political points!
It is not uncommon the find labour minded people here saying that they believe the gulf between the labour party and themselves is greater that the gulf between the labour party and conservative minded people.
Keep it coming Alastair - the louder you preach to the choir, the more you drive out your congregation!
Ha ha ha.
It is sad that some people (20% ish) that are happy to see the country go to hell in a handcart - only caring that it is a labour handcart that takes us there.
But if education can be resurrected in this country, hopefully there will be fewer of that kind in future.
It's amazing really it takes an unprecedented complete International collapse of banks to send 2 million unemployed under a Labour Government.
Even now you make us look so good.
People have just forgotton you guys, and we have been let down by our MP's and MInisters trying to be like your MP's and ex-Ministers.. Also you got caught out with sleaze and lost in 1997, yet leant nothing as your MP's got caught with ours.
Remember the reason we have lost support is that people expect more from us than you. Yes Labour gets my vote.
But don't worry I'll get plenty of thinking people to vote Labour as well.
The middle class vote had only ever been temporarily given to Labour, now it will come back to it's natural home and Labour as a result will go back into opposition.
At least allthe underclass will still vote for you in the hope you can steal a bit more taxpayers money won't they?
The "underclass" as you name them are not very happy with us at the moment because some of our Ministers wanted to be like yours and took money from the public in a disgraceful manner.
And while he may well have been a stupid young man in a different time regarding Section 28, that doesn't excuse him voting no to the bill last year that would have given lesbians a fairer deal regarding IVF.
What I particularly liked in the Guardian report was the reference to how Samantha is apparently a 'strong supporter' of gay rights, well, funnily enough she isn't the leader of the opposition so it's all rather irrelevant.
Has Sarah Brown become Prime Minister then, since she was the sole representative of the Brown family at Pride? Or is she somehow more "relevant"?
By the by, the new model "sincere" Campbell is simply disgusting.
Alastair I am sure other well-heeled professionals living elsewhere in UK would have liked to have attended but I despair at the insular, tunnel vision of your thread.
I am totally against Section 28. I suggest readers view this page where there is snap shot of a page from “Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin”
The blogger rightly asks, 'It is quite obvious that if a man and woman, naked in bed together, with “Jenny” were the subject of the picture, the nude imagery would be unacceptable, so it’s hard to understand why the image above is any more acceptable'.
I would like someone to try to convince me why I would like one of my children to have been shown this book during a school lesson when in their first term at primary school because I know no-one who considers it acceptable.
http://www.workingclasstory.com/2009/05/section-28-dispelling-myths.html
However, my recollections from the 80s are:
1. JLWEAM was a book written to help parents (probably dads) who had been in heterosexual relationships, but had come out as gay. Eric, Jenny's dad, was separated from his wife.
2. ILEA did not in fact allow the book in school libraries. It was in libraries for teachers as a resource to help in special situations, and its use had to be sanctioned by parents. In Lambeth public libraries it was in parental guidance sections. So your children would not have been shown it at all without your consent. This was pointed out in a letter to the Standard when it carried the story, but it didn't print the letter - standard practice for it and The Daily Mail, which also ran the "story".
"A book for *teachers* to help in special situations..."
You clearly have an entirely different idea of what school, education and teachers are for than any rational, responsible parent does.
If you think it is OK for a kid to be in the custody of a father who then enters a gay relationship and then needs the kids *school* to explain the situation, then I can see why lefties have no respect for real 'parents'. It is because they have such low expectations of themselves as parents. But you know what? I share that low expectation of lefty parents too - so at least we have some common ground.
Katherine asked why one of her children should have been shown the book against her wishes in primary school. I just pointed out that contrary to the myth that has grown up around the book, children would not have been shown it without their parents' consent. I didn't comment on the moral aspects of children in gay relationships, the book itself, or teachers becoming involved in explaining adult relationships.
Please read my posts properly before you start dishing out such vile personal comments about I bring up my children.
And the same will happen if Cameron gets into power. His right wing has kept quiet so far (OK, so Tebbit had to say *something*, but even he held back). Under a Cameron government you'll find that his right wing wing demand its payback for being compliant. And what they want will make this country a thoroughly unpleasant place for most people to live in.
If you want to do that spend your own money but I don't want my taxes being used for that purpose.
Of course misuse of other people's taxes is all part of the fun for the left and the gay rights lobby isn't it?
I doubt that the support stretches to promoting it above normality, but that would just be perverse.
I'd personally be uncomfrotable with the idea of teaching any sort of sexual education to younger children, but evidence maybe suggests that a more open and "relaxed" approach to it enables children to develop a greater awareness of the implications of sexual activity, and thus have a more mature and responsible attitude towards it.
So, no children's books featuring parents at all, then? After all, books where a child has mixed-sex parents (Harry Potter, say) show the heterosexual facts of life just as books featuring same-sex couples show the homosexual facts of life.
But most of those who are strongly opposed to gay people seem hung up on it being about sex, rather than about love. Which is rather a shame, really.
Children aren't that shocked by nudity. I have four neices between the ages of 8months and 8 years that I see more than once a week and frequently babysit by myself. I may not be a mum but I understand kids. They really couldn't care less about nudity, unless it's funny. It's a cartoon! Many cartoons are at least partially naked. And I've definitely seen kids books with straight partial-nudity, Daddy brushing his teeth, Daddy taking them swimming, Mummy getting ready for a night out. It's another example about how our rights are sidelined once more. We're not important enough to justify a nude chest, we're not important enough to break away from an alliance that includes a dangerously backwards party. There are many books for kids about LGBT (I studied Children's Literature last year, we looked at this genre) relationships. Try King and King, And Tango Makes Three, Spacegirl Pukes. Unless you disagree with naked penguins, they should be fine for your children's precious eyes.
Also, I couldn't be there but I heard LGBT Labour had a much larger and much more diverse presence at London Pride!
EDIT: Sorry Katherine, my mistake. I wrote without looking at the image because I thought it was a different one, there's a kids book where there's two blokes and their daughter in bed sitting up and you can see a bit of the bloke's chest hair which is obviously there for comedy. I might ask my sister, but I really don't think that image is appropriate. It's the sort of views I had as a kid of my nudie parents (who are heteros). I think the rumpled man and the rumpled bed sheets is adorably normal and the girl being circled by daddy's big strong legs is sweet. I'd think that were they straights. And I think any normal child would recognise that as a scene from daily life and therefore, if raised by straights, be able to relate to Jenny.
I might be wrong but the writing is in my opinion too advanced for a 5 year old. Jenny may be five but I'm guessing the intended reader is more like seven. The sentences are quite long, 'whined miserably' is certainly too advanced and there's a relatively complex inference in 'it's Saturday' (in that the child will have to make the connection with work and the working week. A five year old wouldn't do that.) Besides, the font's so small and there's so much blank space and the picture's not coloured, all of which suggests the book is trying a more 'grown up' approach and therefore is for an older reader.
You are totally incorrect about my first point as the event was not just open to the LGBT population. Really you need to open your eyes and not be so hell bent on LGBT issues - they are a MINORITY. TG
White and black Caribbean
White and black African
White and Asian
Other mixed
However I do not see colour I see mixed-race couples as two people from different countries ie English+Spanish, German+Arabic, Turkish+Swedish.
You just don't get it do you. I object to the two men being portaryed as being a couple. In plain language I would never have want my children to have been confronted by those pictures at the age of 5.
For the record, as you might come back with an equally ridiculous 'would you be offened' example I would be fine about seeing people with different sized teeth.
If the latter then why is it more morally objectionable?
I have two nieces and a nephew, the eldest of whom is 6. They, even the oldest one, don't see my situation as any different to any of their other relations. They have "two uncles", that's all. It's not exposing them to anything sordid or questionable. They don't question our sexual relationship any more than they would that of their Mum and Dad or their heterosexual relations. When they become old enough to understand sexual matters I am certain they'll think about my partner and I, maybe ask their Mum and Dad why I don't have a wife, then when they explain why, say, "Oh. OK." and move on, hardly batting an eyelid.
Kids will only perceive it as being "wrong" or "abnormal" if people (especially adults) tell them it's so. Just the same as no child would believe that a black person, or a jewish person was innately evil or subhuman unless someone told them so.
My point was that your objection to children seeing that two men can be a couple is no different from someone objecting that their children might see two people of different skin colours being a couple.
Skin colour gives no indictaion of sexaul orientation, whereas two naked men does.
For my children to see that would raise questions of who is the girl, where did she come from, why is she in a bedroom with two naked men? etc.
My point being that gay couples often DO have kids, and in many cases this is after the breakdown of a heterosexual relationship and the absence of the MOTHER, not the father. So showing same-sex relationships to a young child is not a bad thing to do. You should be able to decide for yourself, however, when and how you explain the more practical or intimate details of that to your child. But in my experience, most children don't question the situation or ask for details of it until they are much older anyway.
As far as I can tell from personal experience a majority of parents do not want their kids confronted with images and information about gay sexuality.
All you do with this endless crusade is put our backs up and as you have done with me leave us in an anti gay rights mindset that we weren't in before you started.
I'm all for your freedom to do whatever it is you want with your life, just get the **** out of my and my families life.
A chil can walk down the street and see lots of different races every day but are not going to walk down the street and see loads of people in bed together.
Your constant attempts to portray gay sexuality and relationships as "just the norm" are unacceptable for most responsible heterosexual parents.
You've lost this argument, whether you like to belive it or not, as every parent I know would not accept schools showing books such as the one under discussoin to their children.
As has been pointed out there is a silent majority of parents in this country who are heartily sick to death or your gay rights views and actions.
If you want to show such a book and imagery to your kids go for it, but we don't want it being shown to ours and despite Labour's attempts to remove responsibility from parents these last 12 years, we still have the final say.
I would question why the book needed to show the couple (heterosexual or homosexual) in bed together and naked. There are other ways of depicting a relationship than two people in bed. Also it promotes the concept that the basis of gay relationships is sexual not emotional, which is a phallacy.
In terms of you having to explain why there are two men as the parents of the child in the book, would it be any more difficult or unjustified to explain to your child why their friend only has a mummy and no daddy? In my experience It is possible to explain relationships without referring to sex. It's a shame that this book didn't choose to do that, irrespective of whether they were discussing same or different-sex relationships.
Finally some awareness....
Yes it is up to us, so please would you and the rest of the gay rights activists butt out of our nice peaceful lives as you aren't wanted or needed.
I think its fair to say that the whole nakedness issue is more relaxed in Scandinavian countries. I think that a British version would probably not have that picture - but its a shame when bed just means sex, not love and cuddles!
Luckily, New Labour's rightward shift keeps them out of the clutches of the EUL. Those Communists don't have the best record on homosexuality either...