By Simon Wright and Katie Hanson
You might be getting bored with the list of Labour achievements on equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Try thinking about it this way:
When the Conservatives were last in government, the law said that men aged 16 or 17 were criminals if they had a boyfriend. Our bosses were free to decide that we should be sacked, refused a job or denied promotion because of our sexuality. There was humiliation for transgender people who had to use ID in their original gender. There were scores of sexual offences laws that applied only to gay sex and were used by police forces desperate to raise their conviction rates to please Tory Home Secretaries. A neglected child was thought better off living in care than in a loving same-sex couple's home. Local authorities could be prosecuted if they did anything to promote equality in their area. A company or a public body could refuse to provide us with a services if they felt like it and there was nothing we could do. And a couple who had made their life together had no right to have this recognised and could find their relationship obliterated if one became ill or died.
So you would think that LGBT voters would be especially grateful to Labour? Apparently not. Shocking to those of us with longer memories, polls suggest that more LGBT voters are willing to put the Conservatives back in power than want Labour to stay. The rebranding of David Cameron and the Tories has been remarkable. A few patronising comments without any policy commitments has been called a transformation. A few Tories at a Pride march is big news for the gay media, whereas Labour's long commitment is old hat. A few younger Tory MPs standing very close to the camera are preventing us from seeing the massed ranks of old-fashoned bigots that stand behind them.
These LGBT voters recognise that all the hard work has been done by Labour and assume that the Conservatives would not dare to reverse the gains. But the Tory rebranding is so shallow, they have not even changed their voting pattern in the Commons. The vast majority of Tory MPs have continued to vote against every equality measure, every time. Cameron himself has personally turned out to vote against gay adoption, against anti-hate legisation and against equality in IVF treatments. Only one simple reason stopped them from destroying our equality measures - there are more Labour MPs than Conservative ones.
It is a cliché, but true: people do not vote to express gratitude, they vote to encourage change. Between now and the general election, we have to prove that Labour is the only party that can deliver the change that we still need. Not only to protect our gains but with a clear and ambitious forward programme and the will to make it happen. Our Equality Bill will be a vital tool to turn legal equality into full social equality but only with a government that wants to make it happen. Thanks to the National Policy Forum, our manifesto already has mutliple commitments on delivering equality both in the UK and abroad. We cannot assume that LGBT voters are grateful or remember what the Tories are really like. We have to persuade them with the facts.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Your kids will engage with homosexuality from multiple sources: TV, friends, work colleagues, university etc. and there's nothing you can do about it.
'Your community' doesn't exist. Most working-class and middle-class people are quite happy to see equality under the law. It's only you who wets yourself over it.
And lastly, there's more of 'us' (those who believe in equality) than you, and we avoid people like you like the plague. What's great is that you can be sacked for being bigoted or homophobic, so it's more likely to be people like you out of work.
That's why we're seeing all the foaming-at-the-mouth Daily Heil readers leave Britain for less-developed countries (including yourself). I wave goodbye to them at the airport!
The culture war's have already been won, and you were on the losing side of them.
LL is a little like your mind set, hide yourself away from reality and you can believe anything.
My kids will grow up happily never confronted by promotion of homosexuality. My community will never regard homosexual couples the equal of heterosexual couples in terms of adoption or child rearing.
I'm also happy to say that talking to you has made my mind up never to employ another gay person again. You can show your "pride" in the number of jobs lost now can't you.
Same-sex adoption already exists and doesn't contain the caveats you want. And I'm sure same-sex marriage will happen soon enough. It's happening in plenty of other countries, won't be long til it's here either. Especially now that the LibDems are signed up to it, and it's becoming an increasingly prominent discussion.
Regarding equality, we're talking about equality under the law. That certainly is something which is achievable and it's becoming ever closer to reality by the day. Nothing wrong with that.
I expect my children to grow up with a reasonale, rational view of the world, not one based on stereotypes and ignorance.
But anyway, your children will mix with gay people at school, at university, at work etc. There's nothing you can do about that. If your kids have any sense, they'll judge people on their character, not sexual orientation. Otherwise they'll end up bitter and twisted like your good self.
And regarding your obsession with class: first you accused the working classes of being anti-gay, and now you've lost that argument, you're trying to suggest that the middle classes are anti-gay? Make your mind up man. The reality is that you're wrong on both counts. Only a small minority are ruled by ignorance, and the rest of the population generally ignores them or laughs at them.
I think you'll find an aweful lot of the middle class do the same thing. Why else would we spend vast amounts of money buying property in the right catchement areas or paying for private education?
I can't abide socialists, really I despise them. Something you can't get your head around isn't it?
No I don't believe in full equality as i don't think an egalitarian society would work.
You don't have full equality over access to my land do you?
You don't have full equality to be able fiancially to go on the same holiday as a millionaire do you?
Is there full equality over being able to live in the UK?
Is there full equality over whther both children and adults can drink?
How many examples do you need before you realise an "equal" society is a myth?
Same sex coules can adopt so long as the state and social services accept same sex couples should be behind heterosexual coulpes in order of preference.
Same sex couples should get the same legal rights as married couples thourgh CPs. Marriage should be a heterosexual institution.
Heterosexual married couples should get tax breaks and be seen as the best family unit.
You don't like that? Tough, I don't like you or your views either.
For anyone who is genuinely in doubt:
Bill posted:
Not entirely sure what you consider a 'small' minority Guy, but considering there are 3.6 million openly gay people living in the UK, I should imagine by the time youu include those in the 'closet', bisexual and transgender that the numbers in the UK would be hardly what you would call 'small'.
Meanwhile the source he cites does not support his (unqualified) assertion that there are "3.6 million openly gay people living in the UK" the source actually says that this is based on unreliable data (but all they have), it gives no indication of possible margin of error, it makes no reference to 'openly gay' etc...
Tip for all blog participants - if someone cites a source, check it, people often give links to give a (false) impression of reliability, meanwhile relying on people being too lazy to check.
Most people don't think like you do, so they'd have no reason to discriminate.
So not only are you homophobic, but you're also a class warrior. You'd make Alf Garnett blush with your extreme ways.
The saddest part of all of this is that you actually believe most people in this country are like you. My goodness, I suspect most Tories would love to kick you out of their party.
Let's be honest, you've moaned about the amount of LGBT threads on here (which is on a Labour site I would remind you) and yet you've commented on every single one of them.
Sounds a little curious to me. You know perfectly well that your strange ideas aren't going to get much support here, yet you feel the need to declare them to everyone on every post. That's why I said "me thinks thou doth protest too much".
And clearly you don't believe in equality under the law as you don't believe in same-sex adoption or same-sex marriage. So why lie? Why not just admit that you don't believe in equality?
Is it relevant how long a period the studies have been made over? And as I said in comment below in response to Ralph, virtually all the surveys and reports on the size of the gay population are estimates. So again, what is the point you are making?
Guy you have contradicted yourself constently throughout this debate, if you want to fight socialists your best bet is to on the weaker socialists as you term them. Bill is correct your fighting skills are feeble and your level of debate as unsustainable and inconsistent when exposed to logical reasonable arguement. You are a weak debater. I would suggest you spend your time attacking some of the contributors as they seem to have as weak an ability in debating as you do and might make you look a bit smarter in the eyes of your fellow Trolls.
I would like to make one point though Guy, if you'd read what I have put elsewhere, particularly in response to Laurie in some of her recent articles, I am not in favour of positive descrimination. Never have been and I doubt I ever will be. Before you give judgement on my opinion, could you try and discover what my opinion is? I'm Labour minded, not a member of the Labour Party or a Labour Party member, there is a huge difference and worth remembering before you call me a socialist thief again. I'm amazed that some of my opinions of the current administration are published, but it does prove that the LL allows a broad range of views, even ones that do not follow the current Labour Party line.
Yes, I have lost my cool with you, but it is your crass comments regarding children in care that have got my back up, not your opinion of those who happen to be gay. I was about to apologise to a comment I made above as I believe I was out of order with you, but you've made it clear in the past that this would be an irrelevance as to you I am nothing more than a socialist thief. In my opinion, calling someone a thief is a pretty major insult but you seem to throw it at me and others rather a lot.
How about we leave the childish comments at the door in future and debate things sensibly without insults? You resist the urge to label me a thief at every given opportunity and I'll resist the urge to label you a pompous prat. Does that sound fair and equal, or is it more enjoyable that we go at each other endlessly without actually resolving anything?
If you haven't noticed already I don't sing the praises of the government, nor do I agree with certain articles, but I do try to debate the issue based on facts I've researched. Arguing about children in care with someone who has been in care, especially when you have limited or no experience of it, then proclaiming that you are right and I am wrong based purely on a point of view is a pretty poor show. There is nothing wrong with not having an answer to a question.
I wasn't talking about men in their 20s and 30s but boys who play rough and get the dead hand of a feminised education system telling them to behave more like girls.
I've never had a member of any sports team I've been in come out as gay. So all I can go on is that given most are married or with girlfriends that they were stright.
It's very hard to bond in a sports team, military or other like group with a mix of straight and gay members.
I wasn't commenting on what you actually did or do in your spare time - that is of course up to you so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I think you are only recognising one kind of gay man though. There are plenty of straight-acting gay men who hate gay clubs and bars, and who do the same social activities as straights.
There ARE a lot of closet gay men in many sports teams, but actually I share your dislike of the slightly patronising "or at least you thought so" line. I'm not being right on, I just think you're basing your opinions on ideas that are not fully supported by actuality.
You've still not said why you're so convinced it's white males that will be harmed. I can think of plenty of workplaces where diversity would be served by *increasing* the number of white males.
I certainly wouldn't agree with her having children in a gay partnership.
After that, I could go back to being blissfully unaware I was avoiding this multi-million strong gay community that you'd have me believe are wandering the country.
Having spent time carefully composing comments (whether you like it or not) only for them to be vaped without trace just confirms to me what a socialist state is like.
Doesn't really bother me though, the meaning from my posts in contextual terms is pretty clear.
If you won't do that you can't claim to hold any moral ground by simply blocking replies that you don't like.
I've said before please go ahead and ban all non socialists, it's admitting defeat though, which you realise so I wonder if you are prepared to do it.
If not though, just blocking replies to give the semblance of a view that the right-wing poster has met with an unanswerable left wing titanic argument is devious at best.
As for the "I won't publish endless droning about "hating socialism"." comment, you do publish endless droning comments about how Tories aren't "progressive", are "bigots", don't beieve in "equality". Or maybe the lovely posts from Ms Penny where all white males are part of the problem.
Live by the sword etc. unless you edit the LL site where you get to pick and chose winners with the same level of success as Labour governments picking and choosing business winners.
You have the 'trash' button to mark posts that *you* don't like.
If you think all socialists are so simple minded that you can anticipate their response to everything written, then you have an even lower opinion of them than I do.
I didn't claim surprise at my friends "attitude and terminology", I was surprised in that it was his perspective and that he told me it.
Subsequently I was a bit surprised that he thought me so different from his other friends, because as I said:
"having been in very "male" environments all my life i.e. sport, I'd never regarded myself as different to the mainstream"
In other words surrounded by other like minded and behaving males, I was no different to a lot of other people. That my friend thought I was noticeably different to his friends "surprised" me.
Is the ability to think this through lost on you?
Would you like to continue another half hour discussion on the use of the word "surprise" or do you have some semblence of a life to lead?
"The Department of Trade and Industry based the estimate on the findings of a number of studies over the past 15 years"
and
"It is based on a number of studies by different interest groups, but fundamentally there is very little reliable information about the size of the lesbian, gay and bisexual group."
Careful how you word things Guy, that sounds like you decided not to come out as gay and join the scene, choosing instead to remain in the closet. I know what you meant, but there are adults watching and they might misconstrue your meaning.
There is no point in attempting conversation here - just make your comments and move on.
I'm not sure whether I'm finding this entertaining or annoying, but you really are getting silly now Guy. Play nicely or I'll tell the teacher.
You seem to think a long dicussion on the use of the word "surprise", when you haven't grasped the context, is evidence of my inconsistancy? Dear me how silly you are.
My spelling and grammar today are a result of sending reply after reply on 4 or 5 threads in response to moral outrage from the usual leftie suspects. Now I could send every post through a spell check, but you know I just can't be bothered. You aren't worth the time to do that Bill.
I'll restate my view, same sex couples are not as good for bringing up kids as a normal heterosexual couple. You, obviously from personal experience, don't like this and appear to have lost your cool. Whilst I feel sad for you I can't lie and therefore can't agree with you on this gay couple issue.
On the "waving your hands in the air screaming racist" comment. Firstly you aren't trying to emotionalise your response are you? Secondly the equality bill legislates to allow for discrimination (you'd call it positive, I'd call it just plain discrimination) on the basis of both sex and race.
Descrimination on the base of race is RACISM (read that last bit carefully), therefore the Equality Bill is racist (and sexist by the way).
As to the "best friend" issue (pedantic as always aren't you Bill?), your words:
"you happen to have a homosexual best friend Guy", whether you fail to mention if I had others or not is irrelevant. I made it clear it was one of my best friends i.e I gave you clarity whether you needed it or not. I'm not required to sit here Bill only providing information when you ask for it or when you bring something up.
Have you ever debated before, as it seems not?
I manage to get my kids to avoid them and my kid's school avoids discussing them.
So if it's 4 million then fine with me so long as my life stays the same thanks.
And yes, I am taking a pop at your level of intellect. You emphasise the word 'one', but fail to realise that I mentioned your best friend with no mention to whether or not you had others. Constant spelling mistakes, poor grammar and a level of debate that would make a primary school child blush. Please feel free to become as pedantic as I believe you to be and pick holes with my past comments (or this one) on a similar basis. Considering you would have us believe you are so well educated and cultured, you write in the manner I would expect from a common thug. You are a pretentious unsophisticated bully who, when cornered, resorts to class insults, sexist remarks and waving your hands in the air screaming racist.
As mentioned in a comment above you are also inconsistent with your arguments and statements regarding your life, so much so that I am beginning to wonder whether you are in fact a pathological liar. I wouldn't attempt to change your mind Guy. That would be impossible considering you apparently have little logic or reason and as stated, lack the necessary skills to debate an issue properly.
Alex, I apologise for being so insulting with this comment and I completely understand it may be unsuitable for publication.
It was a "surprise" that he would say what he said. Surprise that my reaction and persona was apparantly noticeably different from some of his other friends.
As for surprise over whether it was true, again take another look: "having been in very "male" environments all my life i.e. sport, I'd never regarded myself as different to the mainstream"
Go reread it again.
This is the conclusion of a poll conducted by Jake (a social networking site for professional gay men). Not the LGBT community as a whole. Some of the poll's findings were as follows...
When asked "who has actually achieved most for Britain's three million gay voters?"
86.6% said Labour
only 4% said Conservatives
A question on previous voting patterns determined...
40.5% voted Labour
29.5% voted Conservative
And the one that surprised a lot of people... Who will they vote for at the next election?
38.2% intend to vote Conservative
20.7% intend to vote Labour
This constitutes a 14.2% swing to the Conservatives. Why is this?
Personally, I think it's a little insulting to label gay voters as ungrateful. There is genuine gratitude for the good that Labour has done with regards to gay rights, but there is also a lot to be angry about when you take sexuality out of the equation. When 86.6% acknowledge that the Labour has done the most for gay voters, but only 20.7% will vote for them, you can only conclude that this group of people are not going to vote based on the single issue of their sexuality. Labour's handling of the economy, the erosion of civil liberties, illegal wars, an un-elected and incompetent Prime Minister, political corruption and sleaze. All these concern gay voters as much as straight voters.
Why the 'surprise' when you used the very same language about yourself in a previous comment? You're not very good at this debating are you Guy? Unless you can rant about the 'nasty thieving socialists' you are lost.
I don't want my kids taught about homosexuality
I don't want my kids mixing with the underclass
I don't like socialists as they represent a vote from the working classes to steal middle class wealth.
Yep, horrendous, best get the social workers in.
Response on research on gay parenting blocked
Can't do much if the referee only wants one side of a debate to be heard
Anyone in business knows that if you keep copius notes relating to the application and interview procedures you can pretty much defend any decision.
You are very naive aren't you?
I have been doing it for years and I've yet to come across any situation when I've got 2 candidates exactly matched. There's always some way to seperate them.
So the point of the legislation is either:
1 It's followed strictly in which case it's irrelevant
2 It's followed loosely in which case it's racist and sexist.
My point is this, I've never used race or sex as a method of determining candidates and I don't want a Labour government telling me that I can. If I so much as let race or sex come into play then that racism and sexism.
He came out and got into the gay scene, I obviously didn't. As a result we didn't socialise that much.
I meet him for business luches every now and then and keep in contact but it's different social scenes we live in. He's very happy, I'm happy for him, but we both know we don't have a great deal in common socially.
Not too hard for you to grasp?
This is like debating with a child. At least have a modicum of consistency Guy, you are beginning to look ridiculous.
Personally I've worked and had my political life with gays and got on very well with them.
I just haven't wanted to socialise with them much.
I remember the birthday party for a friend who was one of my vice chairman in politics. He was gay and held the first part of his evening at a normal bar in covent garden before moving onto a gay club. His striaght friends went to the pub and didnt go to the gay club. His gay friends got pretty stroppy about the straight friends not wanting to go to the gay club. All it did was confirm my view hat I didn't want to socialise with them.
Vive la difference
"As one of my best friends said when he came out.... " etc. It wasn't my point and I had never considered it.
It was a point that he found it funny that all is supposedly open minded friends had seemed uncomfortable when he told them and I wasn't.
His persepctive not mine. I was surprised because having been in very "male" environments all my life i.e. sport, I'd never regarded myself sa different to the mainstream (and still don't).
Perhaps it said more about his other friends than me
Reread your original reply to me where you state "As a child I was about as male as you could be" and then review your 'surprise'.
I discovered they were gay later as I got to know them. Your assumption that all gays behave like women is badly misinformed. As I have said on earlier postings in the mob I knew gays who were very much into sports and in the gym every night.
Thet are people Guy like you and me, they just hapen to have a different private life. For me this isn't a problem as I do not care about adults private lives, because they are private. If it's any consolation to you I did meet a gay chap I did not like once but that was beacause he was a Liverpool support and kept bad mouthing my favorite football team.
There you are.
I'm more than happy to give the name of my gay friend, who was ONE of my "best friends" not my best friend. But that's up to him. He's also a Tory by the way.
I linked a number of studies showing gay parents are not as good as heterosexual ones. It's also a personal moral view that you aren't going to change and I'll support any government who champions traditional heterosexual parent rights and support.
For the record monkeybrain I have a number of gay friends who I like and would defend their right to equal protection under the law free from discrimination.
They know, however, that I don't for instance want my kids given homosexual education at school and that I don't believe two gay parents to be as good as two heterosexual parents.
Personally I could say the only reason you support gays is that your one yourself? See how easy it is to take the opposite side of a stupid argument?
Perhaps you should take it up with him?
I can say however that I never met a gay person in any of the sports teams I played in and never went clubbing or drinking with gay friends. Of course you will now no doubt come back with "or at least you thought so" which is the usual pro gay nonsense.
I didn't mix with gays and didn't want to. I had some gay friends and they were the same as anyone else and deserved the same legal rights but they knew and I knew we didn't enjoy the same social activities.
Much as you'd like to protest that everyone is equal in interests and outlook, they aren't.
Based on what I have read up to now, I believe Kinsey could well have been right with his 10% estimate, but I think he was wrong to assign that to just the male population. Had he estimated 10% of a combined male/female population, I don't think it would have been as widely dismissed.
If you search 'sexual orientation report' into your prefered search engine, it takes a lot of trawling through, but there is mountains of information available.
Brilliant.
You mean "masculine" not male. Homosexuals as well as heterosexual are "male" - the word denotes biology, not behaviour.
It's interesting that you define masculinity as playing sport, fighting and being attracted to girls. I can tell you from personal experience that the former two at every level are in no way limited to heterosexuals, but even if they were - what a boring, limited and thick idea of masculinity you have - exactly like a knuckleheaded chav that on other posts you have taken care to distance yourself from. To be honest, it sounds as if you're trying to prove something, which explains a lot.
I am weak in this area and will take whatever information I can find. I will check out the link.
Cheers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505277/Six-per-cent-of-population-are-gay-or-lesbian-according-to-Whitehall-figures.html
A couple of very interesting paragraphs in there if you take the time to read it, such as:
"The estimate falls short of the controversial figure suggested by Dr Alfred Kinsey in his 1948 study Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, which found that at least 10 per cent of the male population was exclusively homosexual, with up to 47 per cent having homosexual tendencies."
And another gem of information:
"The figure is published as companies compete for their share of the pink pound, with recent research showing that homosexual men and women enjoy a combined income of £60 billion."
Did you think I'd plucked the figures from thin air Guy? I have a complusion to research before I comment, may I respectfully suggest you do the same before you tell us all what the British population's opinion is on a particular subject.
Those who protest the most are always the ones who turn out to be gay in the end. Just like all those US evangelicals who get caught 'foot-tapping' in men's toilets.
In fact given the gross irrational hatred you seem to have against certain groups of people, I'd question whether you should actually be allowed to be a parent full stop. If you're raising your children to be Nazis then perhaps social services should intervene.
Describe where I presumed you as anti-gay in my previous comments Guy? I didn't, what I refer to was your bigoted, ill-informed views based on your very limited life experience but that would have required actually reading my comment and as per usual it is too much effort to answer the question asked. When you've finished point scoring with your fictional recap of conversations that didn't happen or regaling us with tales of your high-flying life that seems to leave you without an infinite amount of time to spout rubbish on blogs, maybe you could step back into reality for a brief moment and answer how a child would be changed from the male life you describe by having gay parents?
Don't worry Guy, your comments here are masked by your chosen anonymity so I doubt any of this will effect you if you choose to change your mind about a political career. Or maybe by answering the question you would reveal that you have been less than forthcoming on your views of homosexuality.
Excellent news. I look forward to seeing you prosecuted and then you can spend a lot of worthwhile time in those prisons you seem so fond of.
I don't know why you keep banging on about white males, though. There's nothing in the legislation that makes it only applicable to white males - it depends on the situation in the individual workplace.
If a female teacher was better than a male teacher, I wouldn't want the school employing the male solely to even out numbers.
You really don't get this basic point over the Tory opposition to the equality bill do you? Turning ANYONE down on race, sex and age etc. is wrong, even when you wrap it up in pc language like diversity. It still discriminates against one candidate on the basis of their race or sex.
I am at a loss how the Labour party can be so full on about discrimination but thehn enact discrimination against white males.
Being "male" I wanted the presence of my mother as much as my father. I don't see how 2 gay parents would have related to me or me to them to be honest.
As one of my best friends said when he came out, it was a far easier thing telling me (he thought it would be hard as I was the most "male" friend) as it turned out than telling his other friends. All I did was say "good on you", slapped him on the back and carried on as normal.
It's funny how you equate not wanting gay parents as being anti-gay?
Obviously the wishes of the child are paramount, I wouldn't propose placing a child with a couple they didn't want to be placed with. But if a child didn't mind (and let's face it, children are less prejudiced than adults), then there should be no problem.
My experience of having gay parents in wholly irrelevant, but my experience of losing my family and spending time in care homes is. I was extremely lucky as a child to be fostered and adopted by a good, honest and loving family, but I still know many people who weren't, my natural sisters for instance. At least I have some experience about what I'm talkking about, but you have neither experience of gay parents or of care homes, so you are speaking from a position with no other basis than your bigoted and small-minded views of the world.
I'm very pleased for you that you were so 'male' as a child Guy, thank you for sharing that with us all. Could you tell me how a child would be changed from this male life just by having gay parents though?
Care to post your experience of explaining to your school friends why you have 2 "dads"?
As a child I was about as male as you could be, playing every sport available, getting into fights and only attracted to girls. I can say quite openly that I would have preferred care i.e. foster family etc. to adoption by a gay couple.
My point is simple, the wishes of the child are paramount and are more important than the "rights" of a gay couple.
Please Guy, share your experience with us on this matter and qualify why a life in care is preferential to having two parents who will love and care for you.
Whilst you are at it, care to say why the anti-male, anti-white equality bill is ok?
As for Pride and the Londn streets, how many go and what they do is of no interest. I made a point of ensuring I wouldn't be in London again on this weekend many years back.
Thank you for showing so clearly the kind of bigotry and discrimination that still affects lesbians and gay men far too often.
It's easy for us gay people, as on this Pride weekend we celebrate the still-incomplete freedoms that we have successfully fought for over the years, to forget what the face of open prejudice looks like. Usually the kind of thing we face is far more subtle!
There's an article just been posted here - "why Pride matters". I'm sure it's a good article. But, Guy, for me at least, it's very simple: Pride matters because of people like you.
You're making a defiant public stand against equalities. That's your right. But half a million queers and their friends will be taking to the streets later today to make a public gesture that is pro-equality. And that counts for a lot!
Care to argue that the Tory party won't remove the Equality bill/act from the statute books when they gain power?
Care to argue that the public supports and any government will vote for fertility treatment for Lesbians?
Care to argue that gay members of the public won't vote on mainstream issues in numbers rather than gay rights issues?
Care to argue that anti white legislation isn't racist and anti male legislation isn't sexist?
Care to argue that the gay community isn't a small minority of the country and the "activist" part of it an even smaller minority?
"Again, I'm only publishing this stuff to show that the mind of this self-professed Tory hopeful MP remains firmly, firmly rooted in the past. To me, this sort of thing is bigoted nonsense"
Yes to you Alex it is bigoted I'm sure, to most of the country calling gay rights issues a minority issue is just reality.
To the majority of the country Harman's notion of what "equality" is, is ludicrous, or didn't you see the white working class vote desert the Labour party in droves?
I wonder if you publish this post or hide away from the reality of the position it represents?
Oh by the way, I'm not a "Tory hopeful MP" as you well know. I will not apply for any political position as I can't agree to be bound by this Labour government's laws. On this issue I can say 100% I'm not going to be bound by the Equality Bill and in fact in everyday professional life I'll ignore it completely.
It still is better off in care and if i was in care would refuse to be placed with a gay couple. Most of my friends feel exactly the same way.
"Cameron himself has personally turned out to vote against gay adoption, against anti-hate legisation and against equality in IVF treatments."
Because gay adoption is wrong, anti-hate legislation an attack on free speech and IVF treatment for Lesbains a gross waste of NHS funding at a time when NHS budgets are pressed for mainstream life saving treatments.
"So you would think that LGBT voters would be especially grateful to Labour? Apparently not. Shocking to those of us with longer memories, polls suggest that more LGBT voters are willing to put the Conservatives back in power than want Labour to stay"
Because gay issues are a minority issue, with a minority importance and for a large number of gay professionals they aren't going to vote gay issues over the economy, jobs, education etc.
You may be fixated with gay issues and ludicrous notions of "equality" that aren't anything of the sort, the rest of the country and a large chunk of the gay minority aren't it seems. How does it feel to be irrelevant?
Labours equality bill is racist and sexist and will be removed from the statute books as soon as the Tories get into power.
Excellent.
Life is precious and a happy life is what everybody wants.
Labour has done a good job here, and we should take pride in that.
I do think that the Tory turnaround is interesting and yet I just don’t believe them. I do think that they are the same party they where and always have been. Just look at the issue with Lord Ashcroft, look at what they intend to do on the hunting bill.
I still can’t really tell the difference between David Cameron & Nick Clegg when I listen on the radio. Am I the only one?
Anyway keep up the fight.
In Unity
MA