BBC disinvited us after we stood by Kate Forbes’s freedom of speech, claims LGB group

When you say you know gay people who have different views on marriage, does this mean they think gay marriage is wrong and civil partnerships were enough? Or they disagree with marriage in general?

Of course not. But there would be no debate if everyone they invited agreed with each other.

So you’re only invited to a BBC debate if you say what they want you to say.

What a depressing approach to publicly funded political debate.

I think interest groups need to be very careful not to say too much if they really want to be taken seriously as the public voice of a group.

Yes, but they need to be able to speak publicly first.

Yes, for sure. I just think it's a very interesting question how we, or the media, or political interests, use organizations like this to justify policy. I think interest groups need to be very careful not to say too much if they really want to be taken seriously as the public voice of a group.

Well yes, their point here is free speech. But the question of whether lobby groups can really be said to represent a community in any meaningful way is pretty important in this kind of discussion.

Stonewall for a long time didn't have a viewpoint on same sex marriage because the gay community didn't have a unified viewpoint. It's more unified now, but certainly not completely. For many people it's not a matter of just all groups should be treated the same for all things. You could probably now make a case that an organization like that could represent the community's most common view on that issue, and it would be common enough to be meaningful.

I don't think you could make the case they do on things like abortion though which are very tangential to sexuality. If they do have an organizational opinion on that, what it means is that they do not, in fact, represent that whole community meaningfully. They represent certain members.

So they, and other bodies that do this, become a party type organization, rather than representing a whole group of people with some common identity or something like that which ties them together.

@DemiColon

An org representing 3 different groups is just going to be broader than one person's opinion. Within those three groups there will be a range of views on abortion, same sex marriage etc and they could gather this via a survey of their subscribers if they wanted to - but that's not their interest and the BBC wasn't interested in that either, they wanted click bait so went for Natasha Devon instead.

I know gay men who aren't against, but aren't pro, same-sex marriage. To be fully representative the BBC should have done some kind of poll or had a fully balanced vox pop on it perhaps? No one group represents all views of all members or supporters as naturally there would be differences of opinion across a range of subjects.

Women sorry!

That is the BBC though. I think they foster division and aren’t interested in diversity. Diversity to them is good ole white men in frocks not listening to men or letting them speak.

I wonder about this about an organization being more representative.

In some cases, maybe. But I thought that the comment by the LGB alliance that they didn't agree with Forbes's views on marriage, abortion, etc, was interesting from that perspective. Because I know gay people who have a variety - as in more than two, different viewpoints on marriage. I know some gay people who are deeply pro-life about abortion, and in that case I am not sure what the connection to their sexuality is supposed to be. Why would the LGB Alliance as an organization have an opinion on that at all?

If they are representing the organizations views as somehow reflecting the views of the group they are attached to, it seems like they would have to be very limited in the stances they take.

A lot of what the BBC do with this sort of thing may not be ‘real’ in that it is not true, exploratory discussion. They know in advance what they want and cut out what doesn’t fit.

It's becoming increasingly clear, that what people mean when they say they want a progressive country, is that they want the protected characteristic relating to LGBTQ++ to override the boring old protected characteristics of sex and religion.

And when we're talking about LGB, it's not the boring old same sex attracted type but the blue haired homophobic Q type that want lesbians to accept ladydick.

Bloody non issue. They were looking for a group to represent a particular viewpoint. They will be presenting both sides.

”I don't understand why Humza isn't being grilled over his views on gay marriage as I expect they may be similar to Kate Forbes. I think I know the reasons for this, and they are mostly because in spite of his religious belief he is a also an overt believer of the new religion (except when it comes to double rapists).”

I suspect you are right. There does seem to be a disconnect somewhere. That she is not platforming to roll back any protections at all, but is being vilified effectively and yet he may very likely share the same opinions as she does. But is pointing fingers at her and obscuring his own personal opinions on those issues.

And people have allowed him to do this.

It defies belief .

You might just as well say how can Kate Forbes represent Unionists in Scotland to the world? How can Mr Sunak represent me when he is a Hindu and I am a Christian, I might say? He obviously has different religious views than me but as long as they don’t impinge on the democratically agreed will of the people then that is how politicians represent us. If we only had people whose personal views represented our personal views democracy would be ended.

You're essentially saying that only one religion, atheism, gets to have access to the top job.

Yes but it's more than that. These atheists follow a new religion. One which many many of the voting public do not believe in and that is genderism with all of the harms that that foists on children and women, and gay people.

So traditional religion =bad even though it is a pc in the Equality Act.
New religion = good even though it directly clashes with parts of the Equality Act.

I don't understand why Humza isn't being grilled over his views on gay marriage as I expect they may be similar to Kate Forbes. I think I know the reasons for this, and they are mostly because in spite of his religious belief he is a also an overt believer of the new religion (except when it comes to double rapists).

I look at this differently. How can someone represent Scotland - which is my country - to the world, as an open, tolerant, progressive nation when they don't believe gay people are deserving of equality?
And how can Kate Forbes represent gay people in Scotland? A first minister has to represent the country and stand for everyone in it. I don't think she can.

But can you not see that you are being intolerant against religious views here? It's totally discriminatory to say that someone with particular views should be excluded from a job because of them.

You're essentially saying that only one religion, atheism, gets to have access to the top job.

People seem incapable of grasping that being open and tolerant means that people are allowed to not only hold opinions you find objectionable but voice them and vote in a way that you fundamentally disagree with.

It's not tolerant to say there's only one way to think.

I can find no reason for the difference in the treatment in this issue between Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf other than their sex and the belief of the latter that men can be women if they say so, (unless they are double rapists).

The BBC bias shines through on this one.

I think Kate Forbes is being treated appallingly for daring to be a woman with religious beliefs.

I agree that this is definitely a thing. BBC balance and non-bias my arse!!

Whenever there is a BBC article about Kier Starmer becoming PM which allows comments I always post the same thing -

I respect Kier and think he is a good man of high principal but while he continues with Self-ID and I will not be voting for him.

My post is respectful and not abusive but not once have the BBC Mods allowed it. The mods have allowed all sorts of random discussion about anti-semitism, Starmer being Tory-lite etc non of which have been relevant to the article. But my comments about Self-ID are not allowed. I have appealed and been told my comments are off topic and divisive (they are not and certainly no more so than many others).

I have heard lots of other people have similar issues with the comments section of the BBC.

It's was quite a surprise to me that the BBC are actually very biased after a lifetime of being told the opposite (by the BBC ).

I take everything they report with a pinch of salt now.

Has she said anything at all about rolling back same sex marriage?

Or is she allowed to have her opinion while not imposing her beliefs on others by restricting their rights?

Has Humza Yousaf fully supported same sex marriage? He seems to be leveraging it against other candidates. Candidates who have not platformed changing these laws at all. Yet he didn’t even vote if I remember correctly.

Seems hypocritical to me.

And as Dimpsey has said, it isn’t that straight forward as some LGB people still don’t support ‘marriage‘ either. And there are MPs who don’t support same sex marriage but DO support other arrangements to ensure same sex people have support in all other things.

I would be interested to know if it came down to Yousaf and Forbes, who people would vote for.

Good luck with finding someone that can represent every single person in Scotland.

I doubt Kate Forbes has said that gay people are not deserving of equality. I wouldn’t be allowed to get married in the church that she attends. I’m not religious and I don’t go to that church. I can, however, achieve exactly the same legal protections etc as a marriage in her church would provide, either by marrying in another church, marrying in a registry office, getting a civil partnership at a registry office, getting a solicitor to draw up a bunch of legal agreements between me and my partner (the expensive option and why I went for a £50 marriage instead). At which point do we say that’s equality? Should I be able to demand access to a particular church, or just a church or a council-owned building?

I believe that equal marriage is an important statement of acceptance by society for same-sex couples. I’m glad we have it.

I don’t know Kate Forbes full views on the issue. Not living in Scotland, I’ve not been motivated to find out. If it’s that she’s able to accept that the society around her has chosen a view of equality that doesn’t match her view, then I’d be ok with that. I probably wouldn’t vote for her, but I’d like to hear her out, and if she was my only option to stop the GRR, then that would change my mind.

This is typical of the BBC. I know several people who have been invited on to a program and then their invitations have been rescinded because their views didn’t agree with what the producer wanted. The British biased corporation apparently knows what it wants and pushes an agenda

I wonder what Forbes would have said if asked whether she believed in same-sex civil partnership?

For some Christians, marriage has a specific sacremental meaning and which is particularly relevant where a union may result in the making of babies. She may be perfectly happy with CPs.

There were some Lesbian and Gay people who opposed Gay marriage.

I look at this differently. How can someone represent Scotland - which is my country - to the world, as an open, tolerant, progressive nation when they don't believe gay people are deserving of equality?
And how can Kate Forbes represent gay people in Scotland? A first minister has to represent the country and stand for everyone in it. I don't think she can.