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?

Given the link you posted earlier, you can't complain that people call you homophobic.

They way you're talking you'd think same sex marriage was compulsory.

@HBGKC

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

Except it is historical fact that gay marriage was banned for millennia because of homophobia

And the only reason you'd care about 'language being distorted' is homophobia

This argument is at cross purposes; some people are approaching it personally, whilst others are approaching it philosophically.

One last try, on why people might object to the concept of "gay marriage":

It's a bit like vegetarians demanding the right to describe themselves as carnivores, even though they won't eat meat. The term isn't relevant or applicable to them, so that demand doesn't make sense - unless and until you change the meaning of the words involved. But why would you?

I still haven't heard a good argument as to why words need to change meaning, particularly when it's only to please a very small minority of people who don't like the fact that a word/concept exists that doesn't include them (despite the fact that that's precisely how language & meaning works - by a process of exclusion. A chair isn't a table; a sofa isn't a sideboard; doesn't mean they're not all equally useful pieces of furniture though).

@watmel you can call me anything you like. I haven't actually stated a personal view on this thread. I copied and pasted Church teaching in the interests of clarity, because it was being mis-represented.

@TeaKlaxon your constant misrepresentation of views with which you disagree is...trying.

In this instance the word didn't change meaning it just expanded because it was homophobic previously

HTH

If you grew up in Virginia in the first half of the 20th century then anti-miscegenation rules were a core part of the definition of marriage.

But that core was always racist even at a time and in a place where most people considered it fair.

Opposing change was still racist.

In the same way that discrimination against gay couples was always homophobic, even in times and places where it was considered fair.

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

@TeaKlaxon I claimed nothing of the kind. There may very well have been discrimination against gay people across millennia; some of it might even have been homophobic.

My point is that homophobia has nothing to do with marriage, and vice versa. Unless you want to argue that the very concept of heterosexuality is homophobic..? I believe that is what Queer Theory steers towards, actually.

No, the racist laws were grafted on to an existing universal understanding of what marriage is. The content of those racist laws was never understood as a component of what marriage was anywhere else and many people did of course object to the imposition of those laws at that time in those places, leading eventually to their repeal. It is not an apt comparison at all to the issue of gay marriage.

So you're saying that the actual concept of marriage (ie heterosexual marriage) has always been homophobic?

Um, ok.

The original meaning of the word was of course not homophobic. Do you think that societies all over the globe following different belief systems all just simultaneously came up with the idea of marriage to exclude gay people? The reality is that marriage developed in societies as yes a means of recognising relationships but also as a means of attempting to clarify paternity, sealing alliances, combining assets. Gay people were simply not a consideration in that development, not least of all as gay couples could not produce children. That is not homophobic. The entirety of the definition of the word marriage was altered to include same sex unions, not simply expanded. And even if your reading was true that the meaning was simply expanded, the original meaning would still have been changed by so doing.

Separate but equal has never been acceptable.

When you deny access to a particular state institution for no good reason to gay couples but not straight couples - that is discriminatory pure and simple.

Not the concept. The implementation, though, absolutely was homophobic.

Totally agree with this.

@HBGKC

Essentially, yes.

Gay people have always existed.

The fact that up until this century they couldn't legally get married is clearly exclusionary

Why else would they be excluded from the same rights as heterosexual people 'for millennia' other than homophobia?

It was illegal to be gay up until last century

Come on.

Let's not pretend that homophobia isn't woven through our whole society mostly based on religious doctrine

So there is no discrimination then, you just don’t like that marriage was not believed to include gay couples. It’s fine to think that but one minute you say it’s discriminatory and then the next you say separate but equal isn’t acceptable. A man can be denied access to a smear test provided by a state institution because it doesn’t apply to him, he can of course have access to prostate examinations. What’s the difference?

The history of marriage is also completely mysoginist

I wouldn't be defending it

How is the concept of marriage (union of a man and woman) not homophobic but the implementation (getting married) is? Makes no sense.

In that case why do you think that gay couples must be included in a misogynistic endeavour? Particularly when civil partnerships are available?

Because as long as its available for straight couples it should also be available for gay couples

Disagreeing with someone still allows people to have that view - it also depend what you believe is a right. The same is true of both gay marriage and abortion - do you call both a right?

Why do civil partnerships not meet that need, with the added bonus of not representing a misogynistic institution? Civil partnerships are equal to marriage.

I didn't say they didn't

Id totally be in favour of scrapping/ banning marriage in favour of civil partnerships

But until that happens it should be available to all

This.

People of faith should be welcome in Politics, same as atheists , humanists, agnostics etc

Your views are perfectly clear. You think gay people have "inclinations" and "tendencies" and should not have the legal right to get married.

Why do you keep throwing this red herring in that people are ‘allowed’ to hold their views.

No one has claimed otherwise. Not a single person says she shouldn’t be allowed her views or that she shouldn’t be allowed to be in politics.

Kate Forbes or anyone else can be as homophobic as she likes. But free speech and freedom of belief cuts both ways and your efforts to silence those who think her views are homophobic or who wouldn’t welcome someone with her values as First Minister show that you’re the one who seems to think certain views shouldn’t be allowed.