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?

@twelly

Oh stop it

@Botw1
I think you've proved my point really - no-one allowed another view. That is intolerance!🙄

@Clarabell77 i thought that number of 100.000 was out of date, highly disputed and there are suggestions that around 20k had left since that number was published.

yeah unfortunately nationalism doesn’t bring out the best in people does it.

What an outrageous hypothetical situation to come with. Your example doesn’t make any sense to begin with, but aside from that you are saying both cohorts started off as actual nurses and one then for inexplicable reasons has their position changed. That’s not relatable to marriage historically being between men and women and then as societal views changed civil partnerships were created to provide gay couples with the same protection at all. It reads like a very cynical attempt to appeal to racist notions but it’s not a relevant example.

Won’t someone please think of the homophobes!

Not a comparable example. She was being discriminated against because she had to sit in a designated area at the back of the bus. If civil partners and married couples have the same rights, which they do, where is the discrimination?

Would it be discrimination or not?

By your logic it wouldn’t - since what matters (you say) is not what something is called but rather than rights that go alongside it.

So - if the NHS decides that black people shouldn’t be called nurses (but their jobs, salaries etc are all the same) - is that discrimination?

If you can’t come up with real life examples of actual discrimination- which are plentiful in the real world - it would seem to undermine your argument. I’m not going to engage in a discussion about a loathsome hypothetical scenario you’ve dreamed up to try and prove a point.

The reason you won’t engage is because it very obviously would be discrimination.

Because needlessly forcing people to use different terminology based on their sexuality or their race for no reason is prejudice.

You know it. I know it.

Atheists have their own ideological views that are also personal to them in the same way a religious persons are.

Why should they be allowed to bring those personal views into politics because they happen to be materialists of some stripe?

No I won’t discuss it with you because it’s so sixth form to dream this scenario up and it’s offensive that you and others have sought to use examples of racism to shore up your idea that any one that disagrees with you is a homophobe. As per my previous post your example doesn’t even make sense as a comparator in any event because the materials aspects you have identified are simply not relevant. In your example all couples would have to have been married first but then gay couples were forced to have civil partnerships. That’s not what has happened.

Until quite recently most societies saw marriage as existing as a way to socially manage the usual outcomes of heterosexual behaviour. Specifically children, and also in some societies to manage the differernt impacts of that on males and females.

The idea that it was about romantic love or recognizing couples was just not a significant part of their thinking.

That's why many societies that fully accepted homosexual activity nonetheless did not have same sex marriages, and even thought the idea absurd. Why would you need that for two people of equal status who were not going to produce offspring?

In that sense it was very much seen as similar to a man getting a smear - irrelevant to the situation.

You’re really dancing on the head of a pin here.

Either different title but same terms is discrimination or it isnt discrimination.

That would all make sense if marriage had excluded post-menopausal women. But it didn’t.

No, you can’t comprehend you are not comparing like with like. Aside from anything else, both cohorts in your ridiculous example were nurses. That is people qualified as nurses. The NHS doesn’t designate people nurses, their professional standing does. The NHS may come up with a new job title in your twisted example but all the nurses would remain nurses regardless as the NHS does not have jurisdiction over who can rightly be called a nurse or not. You have made up a horrible scenario involving racism to try and bolster your argument and failed.

You’re right - it is ‘horrible’. Because calling people by different titles based on their race is horrible even if their terms of employment are the same.

Your most latest whataboutery is even more desperate. Replace NHS with RCN or any professional accreditation body and the example still holds. And it’s still an example of discrimination.

There are robust laws against racist discrimination. There is zero reason for you to suppose your example would ever come to be. You still thought it was acceptable to dream up a scenario where it would to try and point score. You should reflect on that. Whataboutery? Your made up example of discrimination is not a reasonable comparison to marriage vs. Civil partnership in a discussion about discrimination and the law. Because there is no discrimination as marriage and civil partnerships are equal in law. The point about accreditation is that even in your example if the job title was changed by the NHS the nurses would remain nurses. Now you say just change NHS for RCN. Even when you have made a scenario up you still can’t get it to fit in to your preconceived ideas.

Ah I see. My scenario wouldn’t happen because ‘there are robust laws against racist discrimination’.

So what you’re saying is that a body that decides who is and is not a nurse deciding to call black nurses a different name would be discriminating but it would never happen due to anti-discrimination laws.

But you told us if someone has the exact same rights, it doesn’t matter if they have to use different words. You told us that that isn’t discrimination.

You're talking about a generalized social convention. Not some kind of legislated policy position.

You can't understand how marriage was understood in most societies until quite recently without understanding it existed to manage the biological realities of being a sexually reproducing species. Which actually don't end at menopause - human children take a long time to grow up, grandparents play important roles and there is often a need to conserve or consolidate proerty for the next generation,, and most importantly, marriage was the primary way to ensure women as they age continued to be cared for by the father of their children. In addition, in many societies older people did not, in fact, marry - widows were cared for by their children. In others the rules were looser,or smetimes an older woman might marry in order to secure her position, but that was not always a good situation for her.

But that doesn't change what marriage's main role was, or the fact that people conceptualized it that way. People did not think like late 20th century people with access to all kinds of reliable contraceptive tech and complicated social programs. Differences between sex roles were baked in for anyone that had children and those had to be managed in the social structures of the society.

@twelly

I see you've reported my post. How pathetic

So I'll repeat, you're entitled to you're view.

Im entitled to point out your view is wrong

No one is being silenced or bullied

@DemiColon

Because generally speaking atheists aren't making decisions based on indoctrinated nonsense

Religious beliefs in politics do not tend to have positive effects

They want to remove rights so that everyone else has to follow what they believe in

They tend to be mysoginist and homophobic

Obviously atheists can be all of those too including any other ism

But it's the indoctrination I object to

Of course we're talking about legislated policy positions. Civil marriage has been around for centuries and it has always been open to people with no ability to procreate biologically.

The only couples who would not have biological children who were excluded were gay couples.

That is a homophobic exclusion. It was then, and it still is where people advocate for it.