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?

@Eyerollcentral

The right of marriage

I think your condescension rises in inverse proportion to the robustness of your arguments.

The history of ‘separate but equal’ is not a prop - it is a perfect illustration of why the concept is nonsense.

Ive given you both a hypothetical example and real life examples where separate but equal very clearly constitute discrimination. Your increasing reliance on sneering insults doesn’t hide the fact that you can’t address the points.

So you can’t answer the question. Ok 👍🏻

I remember Tim Farron being harangued about being a practicing Catholic (I thought hat we'd left such religious intolerance behind in the 17th Century).

It's OK to be morally opposed to abortion. She's entitled to her own views. If she is coming from a liberal standpoint of "my conscience doesn't agree with it, but what your conscience agrees with is up to you" then her views don't actually affect anyone else.

Out of interest, why is it acceptable to lynch someone for being a practicing Christian, but not a practicing Muslim - even though the views are the same? Either we are tolerant of religious belief or we aren't. Remember that such beliefs are protected in the Equality Act.

I’m bored of going round in circles with you if I’m honest. Unless you are a black person I think it’s pretty offensive to try and wear their suffering to prop up a point online. It’s pretty mind blowing you can’t recognise that.
I’ve told you I’m not addressing made up scenarios. I’ve addressed all your other points. Your response was to say I agreed with you when I didn’t and had been clear that I didn’t. If there is anyone here that needs to take a look at themselves it’s not me.

Fairly obviously, the right to get married. To call yourself married. To be considered married in the same way as hetrosexual couples.

Now, answer my question please. If marriage and civil partnerships are exactly the same, why don't we just call them the same thing?

@DdraigGoch

No one is being lynched.

Beliefs aren't protected by the EA. The right to practice religion is

Are you concerned about Yousaf? He’s religious too and holds the same beliefs.

If not, why not? Is it only Christian females that you are worried about?

you have a right to both practice your religion and state your beliefs and to bring your children up in that belief ( I believe article 9 on United charter of human rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

on this matter most world religions ( and the majority of the world's population) agree with Kate, you might find the occasional iman that doesn't but it the general belief of Muslims, Jews, etc etc
the vast majority of the world hold this view,
Humza is certainly out of step with the view of the Quran that is his perogative see above no one has to sign up to all the tenets of their religion unless perhaps they want to be a priest, minister iman rabbi guru etc but he can't pretend that the general view of Islam in the UK nir indeed of the Muslim world in general is supportive of his stance.

The racist analogy is interesting as large groups of people within these communities view the "new" western views of sexual morality and / or freedoms as a form of neo- colonialism and another form of white supremacy, first you tried to impose Christianity morality on the empire now you are trying to tell us we need to abandon these same values and they would term it is as intolerant and bigoted to insist that African, Asians nations change their laws to suit Western values
I am not stating my own views just a different way of looking at it

Ah don't point this one out! I did earlier and was ignored and told that it is not discrimination to treat a woman differently on this point!

You see not only is Yousaf male, Yousaf is a follower of the 'new religion' except when it comes to rapists, they don't count.

Not to mention the real homophobia that accompanies the 'new religion'.

The fact that she opposes gay marriage is a smoke screen for the real issue, that she is an opponent of the gender bill.

Did you miss the bit where she said that her religious beliefs would shape how she votes as an SNP?

I see.

So you won't address a hypothetical scenario that illustrates why you are wrong because it's hypothetical.

And you won't address real life examples that illustrate why you are wrong because you assume me to be white, and therefore without any locus to refer to historical injustices faced by black people (which, according to your flawed logic were not discriminatory).

The common thread? You refusing to actually address the substantive issue: separate but equal is a discriminatory concept, it always had been and always will be.

He doesn't hold the same beliefs.

He supports marriage equality and doesn't believe that gay sex is a sin. And he's been clear that he will vote on legislation based on his assessment of the merits, rather than based on his religious beliefs.

So no - I'm not sure why anyone would have concerns about someone who has given zero indication that he has homophobic beliefs, or that if he had them, that they would influence his vote in Parliament.

Actually I am sure - lots of 'hey, look at the Muslim guy - he's probably a homophobe too' prejudice.

Interesting that you are so sure on this when he actually missed the vote on gay marriage!

If it was so important to him that I am sure he'd at least have bothered to turn up.

So no, nothing to see here is there.

Just accuse women of being racist for asking questions! Same old.

Interesting point there at the end; puts me in mind of Moonicorn's post at the very beginning, which is worth repeating:

"Well if we are only ‘allowed’ to vote in people with certain views, why bother having elections? I disagree with Kate on these but I’m tired of the left thinking they have an inherent right to shut down anything they find ‘offensive’ and that we should just be able to choose from a selection of candidates they personally find acceptable. It’s beyond arrogant and why people are getting tired of them."

When a Muslim guy says that he supports marriage equality, that he has no moral issues with the sex lives of gay people and has voted for equal marriage, it is really pretty Islamophobic to continue to insist there is a parallel between him and someone who does believe that gay sex is sinful, gay marriage should not be permitted and has explicitly said she would have voted in line with those beliefs.

Literally all you've got here is 'this guy is a Muslim, so he must be a homophobe like Kate'.

No I've got the fact that there was a vote on gay marriage which he declined to attend, presumably because he didn't want to vote in favour given that he arranged a meeting 2 days after the vote was scheduled.

I don't know if he is anti gay marriage or not. I do know he failed to attend the vote.

I do think that he should be questioned on his believes given those facts given that it appears to be such an issue for the voters as it is when it comes to Kate's views.

There wasn't just one vote though, was there.

He missed one out of several votes due to a clash. That is really very common in politics, by the way. Party whips routinely give 'slips' to ministers who cannot attend a vote due to doing some official business.

If Yousaf was some secret homophobe, don't you think he'd have missed the other votes too?

Nope - sorry - the difference between someone who voted for gay rights, vocally supports gay rights and says his religious views won't dictate how is votes; and someone who opposes gay rights and says her religious views would dictate how she votes is the difference between night and day.

This is just another example of people who hate trans rights being willing to throw gay rights under the bus as collateral damage.

Assuming a person who deliberately arranged a meeting to clash with with the vote on a gay marriage is pro- gay marriage is simply bizarre to me.

The logical assumption is that either :

a) the issue was not important enough to him , or;
b) He didn't want it on record that he voted against for reasons such as the one we are at the the moment.

Very odd to assume he was pro- with no actual voting record to back this up.

This is just another example of people who hate trans rights being willing to throw gay rights under the bus as collateral damage.

Don't make me laugh, in your world lesbian's have penises. That's the real homophobia, right there.

He has been questioned.

He has explained why he missed one (of several) votes. He has set out his views on gay rights (he supports them), and on how his religious views will influence his votes (they won't).

What more should he be asked?

He has set out his views on gay rights (he supports them),

The right for a lesbian to have a penis.

Ah aye, the homophobia of the 'new religion'.

Apart from all the other times he voted for gay marriage and said publicly that he supports gay marriage, you mean?

Do you have any idea how ministers' diaries work? Do you have any idea how Parliamentary whipping works?

LOL - of course the transphobes are out calling a lesbian a homophobe because she's not on board with their 'hey, look at the Muslim - he's probably a homophobe like Kate Forbes - look over there at the brown guy'.

I’m not wrong. I’ve given you more than enough opportunities to grow up and discuss the matter in good faith. You’ve repeatedly shown yourself unwilling or unable to do that.
‘without any locus to refer to historical injustices faced by black people (which, according to your flawed logic were not discriminatory).’ completely outrageous. Retract that. I haven’t said anything like that at all. You are absolutely without shame, you will literally say anything to try and prove a point. You should really take time to reflect on your behaviour.
As I have said I actually have been affected by real discrimination. The course of my whole life, my parent’s lives and my grandparent’s lives were marked by it significantly. You know the real cannot get a job, get burnt out of your home, no right to vote kind of discrimination.