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?

While i would be horrified too if anyone tries to repeal gay rights or abortion laws as first minister for Scotland, you make an excellent point about cancel culture and the absolute intolerance of the self entitled extreme left who seem to think their opinion is the right and valid one only and anybody trying to argue against them should be shut down from even voicing them as long as they are legal.
Also, the manipulation of facts to push their argument that ive seen on social media i loath but few question.

Oh I hadn’t thought about it like that, I guess you’re right….

And yet no one has offered a non-homophobic reason that gay couples should not be permitted to marry. Go figure.

People have different views - you don't have to be "interested" but we should acknowledge and respect other people's point of view.

I don't believe that the vote should have been given to 16 year olds but that doesn't make me ageist of phobic - its a different opinion. It doesn't mean I am prejudiced again that group.

I don’t think any explanation offered to you would satisfy you. You think anyone opposed to gay marriage is homophobic. That’s simply not true. I find it bizarre frankly that you have made the question of whether someone supports the legal meaning of the word marriage being amended to include same sex spouses as the number one deciding factor to you as to whether or not someone is anti gay people.

Denying people certain rights due to a completely arbitary reason or because they are members of a certain group is, by definition, bigoted.

And what do we call someone who is bigoted towards gay people?

"The Church has sometimes spoken of “homosexual persons.” Anyone who has a “more or less strong tendency towards” sexual activity with a person or persons of the same sex can be so described.
Of course, as is well known, most such persons are also “heterosexual persons.”
That is to say, most people who engage, or have an inclination to engage, in homosexual activity also engage, or are more or less inclined to engage, in sexual activity with a person or persons of the opposite sex.
Very many homosexual persons – persons with homosexual inclinations – marry and have children by their spouse.
Not all do, and there are some, relatively quite few, who have a sexual urge but lack the psycho-physical capacity for marital intercourse."

Haven't these people ever heard of bisexuality? Of course most gay people aren't also straight, how the fuck does that make sense?

What rights are denied to gay people?

If you "disagree" with gay marrage, then, fairly obviously, you think that the right for gay people to marry should either not be granted or it should be taken away.

Otherwise, you agree with it, don't you.

This is not hard.

Do you think everyone should respect the opinion of people who want to deprive them of rights?

Would you respect the opinion of someone who believes women shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

In Kate Forbes’ ideal world, the right to marry.

Where did I say it was the number one marker of homophobia?

Theres lots of things that might indicate someone is a homophobe. Believing that gay couples should not be allowed to marry is one of them.

Whats more all posters claiming otherwise have had multiple opportunities to offer logically consistent and non-homophobic reason to oppose gay marriage. But they can’t. Instead they just claim gay people must respect views that would deprive them of rights.

Or you think marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been for thousands of years. Civil partnerships have all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. They are equal to marriage. I have yet to hear even the most right wing or religiously conservative politician advocate for the removal of gay marriage - and I live in NI where the DUP are a thing. Even they have not proposed that gay marriage should be repealed.

To be honest for me it’s because there is no point trying to discuss the matter with you. The only answer you will accept is ‘It’s homophobic’. That’s completely your right but equally is my right to think there is no point engaging with her.

Thinking ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’ is just a truism in terms of the beliefs of homophobes.

We know they think that.

But there is no explanation as to why it should be that way that is logically consistent and non-homophobic.

Saying that some people just believe marriage is between a man and a woman so they’re not homophobic is like saying someone ‘just’ believe only men have the right skills to vote so they’re not misogynistic.

But you are engaging. The only thing you’re refusing to engage with is what possible reasons you think there are to oppose marriage equality that aren’t homophobic.

It’s not a truism, it’s a statement of fact. It’s less than 10 years since gay marriage was legalised in this country. Prior to that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. I find it completely bizarre that despite that having been the meaning of marriage for millennia you think anyone who doesn’t accept the new definition only does so because they hate gay people. Surely the most logical explanation is that that is what they have known marriage to mean all their lives.
‘Saying that some people just believe marriage is between a man and a woman so they’re not homophobic is like saying someone ‘just’ believe only men have the right skills to vote so they’re not misogynistic.’ this comparison doesn’t bear scrutiny. You aren’t comparing similar concepts at all.

In a democratic and civilised society we can debate and agree to disagree but alleging that someone is homophobic or bigoted because of a viewpoint is simply a way of silencing others views. It is this type of approach that stops debate on a range of issues and in my view shows intolerance to others views and opinions - interestingly it is christian views that more frequently attract this kind of response whereas when those of muslim faith express such views it is held be a matter of culture rather than attract such comments.

I think on this issue we will have to agree to disagree

For millennia, marriage = man & woman. That is an historical fact. Nothing homophobic about it, just reality.

2004: civil partnerships gave homosexual couples the same legal rights and status as married (i.e. heterosexual) couples.

Not good enough, though. Unless everyone agrees to redefine the concept of MARRIAGE to give it a completely different (almost opposite) meaning to its universally recognised, historically established meaning, everyone is homophobic.

That is illogical. A bit like saying everyone is transphobic unless everyone agrees that woman must now also mean man.

Nonetheless, 2014 sees gay marriage legislation passed into law, thereby changing the meaning of a societally important concept.

You maintain that anyone who objects to this language (and the concepts it represents) being manipulated, distorted and changed beyond recognition, is homophobic. I beg to differ. Never the t'wain shall meet 🤷🏻

Leaving aside the fact that you don’t seem to know what a truism is, the fact that someone believes something should continue the way it has always been does not mean they are not prejudiced.

Opponents of mixed race marriage in the 1950s in Virginia also just wanted things to continue as they always had been. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.

What matters is why someone wants things to stay the same. And there is no non-homophobic reason to deny gay couples the right to marry - there never was and there still isn’t.

No. In a civilised society minorities are not forced to pretend that those who want them to be discriminated against have legitimate views that ought to be respected and debated.

You lost me when you claimed that discrimination against gay people across millennia was nothing to do with homophobia.

I do know what a truism is and ‘the fact that someone believes something should continue the way it has always been does not mean they are not prejudiced’, yes and logic dictates that the same is conversely also true, it also does not mean that they are prejudiced.
Mixed race marriage again is not an appropriate comparison. Racist laws were put in place in some places in the world where racists did not want people of different ethnicities marrying. Those laws were imposed unjustly on to the meaning of marriage, they are not a congruent part of the accepted meaning of marriage itself.

Where is the discrimination if there is an equal facility whereby same sex couples can have their relationship legally recognised?

You are ascribing 21st century views to an assessment of the past. It is bonkers to conclude that marriage meaning the union of a man and a woman has always been homophobic. You are assuming that societies in the past all routinely discriminated against gay relationships and that the mainly Victorian era laws which framed much of the UK understanding of gay life until recently was a universal experience throughout the history of the world. You have approached this whole question with a very limited viewpoint and as a result you fail to take anything else but your own view in to account.