To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

[Creatine11]

Abortion and LGBT rights have been something that have largely not been part of political debate for at least the last 10 years. Gay marriage was enacted in 2014 and was broadly supported. The last serious challenge to abortion rights was at the start of the coalition government with Nadine Dorries et all. However, broadly gay rights and abortion rights have been settled issues- it has almost been taboo for politicians to oppose them. Certainly, there hasn’t been any serious possibility over the last decade (at least) of any rowing back on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, divorce law etc.

However, it is clear that in the heart of hearts of Forbes she disagrees with all these things due to her beliefs as an evangelical Christian. By all accounts she was very competent as a minister and has been a good MSP. However, as first minister she will be a figurehead for Scotland as well as setting the tone for policy and political discourse. Also, unlike Rees-Mogg and DUP types, Kate Forbes seems like an otherwise sensible, competent, ‘normal’ politician.

My concern is Forbes being the leader of Scotland could normalise her views on these issues. While I don’t believe abortion or gay marriage face immediate threat, if it’s brought into mainstream politics it will become a party political issue and may well shift public opinion, especially given the current culture war. Politicians, journalists, activists and others who have held these views quietly may be emboldened to launch a new campaign against abortion, LGBT rights or some other issue. I don’t know this would necessarily just be limited to Scotland as Nicola Sturgeon and her policies had a very high profile in the rest of the UK and influenced policy.

Aibu to worry about Kate Forbes becoming SNP leader and first minister?

On the same point - I'm sorry to be pedantic, but your right to same-sex marriage WAS negotiated, very recently, when it was passed into law. Law, clearly, IS negotiable - along with almost everything else I can think of.

@HBGKC

Who, prof stock?

No.

Forbes is though

That's your opinion, which you are, of course, entitled to. Other people are entitled to hold a different opinion on the subject.

A homophobe is someone who fears or hates gay people (Collins)

A person who has an extreme fear or dislike of gay people (Cambridge)

One who hates or fears homosexuals (MacMillan)

There seems to be a bit of 'definition creep', both on this thread and in wider social discourse.

@HBGKC

'Other people are entitled to hold a different opinion on the subject.'

I don't think anyone has said otherwise?

I would define homophobia as the above but also including anyone who viewed being gay as lesser or wrong

You stated, as fact, that Forbes IS homophobic. Maybe you meant that you think she is.

Why does it bother you that I think it's a fact she is homophobic?

It doesn't bother me, I was just pointing out that it's an opinion rather than a fact (which is how you'd presented it).

Yeah I don't think I need to qualify every comment with IMO

It's just your opinion she's not

Do you think the right of black people not to be enslaved is up for negotiation?

Do you think the right of women to vote is up for negotiation?

But not a single person on here is arguing that Kate Forbes doesn’t have the right to be against marriage equality.

What I am saying is that other people have a right to consider that position both wrong and homophobic.

@TeaKlaxon
I agree that other people can form their own options on whether this issue is significant when voting. Kate Forbes view in my view was not homophobic it is an opinion based upon her religion. I think its too easy to level the "phobic" allegation - as I said earlier, there are examples of homophobia but this in my view is not one of them.

Why does a view being based on religion mean it’s not homophobic?

Yes, how do you feel about this-given that he skips votes on any issues that don't suit his religion.

Or is it just the Christian religion you'e worried about?

Read the thread.

He missed one vote. He voted for marriage equality at all stages except one.

What do you think happened? His religion only kicked in at that one stage of the legislation but none of the others?

phobia/phobic - is an an irrational fear or hatred. These views do not necessarily mean that someone has a hatred or is fearful. There is a difference between disagreeing with something to hating something - how one behaves on a day to day level for example, I refer again to Chris Bryant who said in his emotional speech spoke so positivity of devote catholics who did not believe in same sex marriage yet who always asked after his husband.

Surely if gay marriage was so important to Humza he would have made sure to attend the final vote? It just doesn’t make sense that he made other plans so far in advance. Alex Neil has said he deliberately missed the vote because he was under so much pressure from the mosque.

It's funny how none of the candidates for SNP leader (and thus First Minister) have promised a Scottish election if they win. This is despite every SNP MP and MSP calling for a general election after both Johnson and Truss resignations. They bleated that it was undemocratic for just party members and/or MPs to select a new PM and the new one would have no mandate, but it is suddenly fine for SNP to elect a FM without an election.

This is just the latest example of the SNPs hypocrisy. John Swinney claims that there can be no election as Holyrood operates on a fixed-term basis, but this is disingenuous as there are ways to dissolve the Scottish Parliament and hold an extraordinary general election.

Not interested in your semantics and selective use of definitions.

Many definitions of homophobia include prejudice against gay people. Unclear to me how you would consider thinking my relationship is less worthy than a straight relationship is anything other than prejudice against gay couples.

Who said it is ‘so important’ to him? All he’s said is that he supports it.

Thats what he’s said consistently for at least the last ten years. It’s how he voted in all other stages of the Bill.

If his aim was to appease opponents of gay marriage within Islam, he went about it in a very strange way.

Alternatively of course, we could focus on the candidate that actually doesn’t support gay couples’ rights, rather than pretend that a candidate who has stated and voted his support for gay couples must be lying because he’s a Muslim.

2023 the year that female politicians can be discriminated against by members of the SNP on the grounds of the protected characteristic of 'religion'.

And it's seen as progressive.

Yes. I do think it takes a certain amount of density as a person not to realise that people may disagree with gay marriage and not actually be homophobic. There’s a lot of this kind of thinking (I.e. total lack of thinking) at the moment that says if you don’t like x then you hate y.

Civil partnerships confer the same rights as marriage. It is equal to marriage. Not less. People can be against gay marriage on principle and still consider gay couples as worthy of the same amount of respect as straight couples.

So important to him that he missed the most important vote on the subject, fgs you can vote ten times on something to boost your progressive credentials when actually the vote isn’t going to change anything. To deliberately miss a vote - and there was absolutely nothing Humza was doing on the day of that vote at that time that could not have been done on another day or at another time - that actually WOULD effect change shows you he is a charlatan using gay rights as a means to project himself as progressive. My personal feeling is the only thing Humza gives a f about it Humza. Depressing to see how many people can be fooled by a flimsy veneer of appearing to be progressive. As for his coreligionists clearly anyone can see all he has to say is I have to vote with the party whip but I’ll be skipping the actual vote, I’m a high profile person and it’s good for our community that I am seen to appear to be progressive as (shown by your posts) homophobia will be used as just another stick to beat us with if I don’t. Humza uses his status as a Muslim Parliamentarian from an immigrant background the same way he uses anything else he supports, to promote himself. It’s dispiriting that you cannot discern actual allies from people using your cause to suit themselves.

@Eyerollcentral

'People can be against gay marriage on principle and still consider gay couples as worthy of the same amount of respect as straight couples.'

Can they fuck