Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

620 replies

Creatine11 · 24/02/2023 10:01

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?

OP posts:
HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:26

@TeaKlaxon you said "Catholic teaching is that gay people are ‘intrinsically disordered’.

Thats pretty damn anti-gay."

You're mistaken. The following is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says. Note that it does not say that gay PEOPLE are disordered; it says that the homosexual INCLINATION, or tendency, is intrinsically disordered:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 19:31

@HBGKC

Oh come on.

Gay people don't incline or tend to be gay

They are gay.

It's not an inclination.

TeaKlaxon · 24/02/2023 19:33

Eyerollcentral · 24/02/2023 18:55

There was an internal divide within stonewall about it. Google it and you will see the first article you s from the independent about the division and Ian mckellen saying that stonewall needed to take a stance as at that time they weren’t taking a position on gay marriage. This was 2010. People not supporting the campaign for gay rights IS saying that you don’t think gay people should get married.

Show quote history

No.

Saying that gay marriage isn’t going to be a priority for your campaign isn’t opposing gay marriage.

We’re talking about the belief that gay couples should not be treated equally. That is what’s homophobic.

TeaKlaxon · 24/02/2023 19:37

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:19

@TeaKlaxon, some posters on this thread have stated their worry that IF she stands, some people - gasp - might vote for her; she might even - shock horror - be elected.

And that, apparently, is Not Ok... even if it is the fair outcome of a democratic process.

All candidates are equal, but some, it seems, are to be treated less equally than others.

Bollox. No one thinks all candidates are equal.

Donald Trump is awful. He is not equal. If he’s democratically elected in 2024 he will still be awful and not equal.

No one has to pretend to be happy that someone with views they find abhorrent occupies a position of power.

TeaKlaxon · 24/02/2023 19:38

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:26

@TeaKlaxon you said "Catholic teaching is that gay people are ‘intrinsically disordered’.

Thats pretty damn anti-gay."

You're mistaken. The following is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says. Note that it does not say that gay PEOPLE are disordered; it says that the homosexual INCLINATION, or tendency, is intrinsically disordered:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

Dancing on the head of a pin.

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:39

I simply quoted Catholic teaching on the matter, which was different (in a subtle but important way) from what a previous poster had stated.

I don't want to derail the thread, as this is actually quite a complex theological point. The link below is an interesting and helpful explanation of the Church's position, for those who are interested in what it really teaches, and why:

www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55276/what-the-church-teaches-about-homosexual-inclinations

HeadNorth · 24/02/2023 19:40

Kate Forbes is the MSP for Skye & Lochaber. I suspect far more of her constituents share her religious views than believe a rapist can be a woman. But one is beyond the pale & the other is mandatory in the modern SNP. Strange times.

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 19:42

When they have to talk about inclinations you know they're homophobic

triforcetotem · 24/02/2023 19:43

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:26

@TeaKlaxon you said "Catholic teaching is that gay people are ‘intrinsically disordered’.

Thats pretty damn anti-gay."

You're mistaken. The following is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says. Note that it does not say that gay PEOPLE are disordered; it says that the homosexual INCLINATION, or tendency, is intrinsically disordered:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)

If the "inclination or tendancy" is disordered, then that kind of implies the people who have it are disordered.

flowerycurtain · 24/02/2023 19:46

@HeadNorth interesting thought

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:49

@triforcetotem no, the Church says explicitly that a person is NOT to be defined by their sexual orientation.

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 19:53

@HBGKC

Why not?

I don't seperate my sexuality from my identity.

Do you?

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:55

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 17:58

@picklemewalnuts

How can you not be homophobic if you believe marriage should only be for men and women?

I disagree with her, I'm not discrimating against her.

Shes free to practice her religion. I just don't think she should have the power to force those beliefs on anyone else

The CofE can't rewrite the bible

Unfortunately

Marriage, throughout history (until 5 minutes ago) meant the permanent union of one woman and one man.

It is not homophobic to disagree with completely changing the meaning of marriage, particularly given the fact that same-sex couples in civil partnerships already had ALL the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. There was no injustice that required the redefinition of marriage to be put right. The two kinds of union were equal, but different.

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 19:56

Yes it is

TeaKlaxon · 24/02/2023 19:57

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:55

Marriage, throughout history (until 5 minutes ago) meant the permanent union of one woman and one man.

It is not homophobic to disagree with completely changing the meaning of marriage, particularly given the fact that same-sex couples in civil partnerships already had ALL the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. There was no injustice that required the redefinition of marriage to be put right. The two kinds of union were equal, but different.

Show quote history

But that’s just it. They weren’t different for any relevant purpose under the law.

Which is why denying even the term marriage is homophobic.

Treating people differently may be justified - but it needs an actual justification. Not just ‘separate but equal’ is fine.

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:59

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 19:53

@HBGKC

Why not?

I don't seperate my sexuality from my identity.

Do you?

Again, I'm simply quoting Church teaching. If you're really interested in the nitty gritty, I do recommend the link I posted above.

And no, I don't, and neither does the church say that the two are separate; it just says that the former is not the sum total of the latter.

Ludo19 · 24/02/2023 20:02

BigBoysDontCry · 24/02/2023 10:10

The whole thing is ridiculous. None of the candidates are competent. How is she being judged about being honest in what she believes for herself but understands that others believe differently, when another candidate is a practicing Muslim who dodged the vote on gay marriage not being judged?

Honestly hope none of them get in and that in some way the creepy greens get shunted.

This

triforcetotem · 24/02/2023 20:04

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 19:49

@triforcetotem no, the Church says explicitly that a person is NOT to be defined by their sexual orientation.

So how can someone have a disorder and not be disordered?

VestaTilley · 24/02/2023 20:06

YABU. Hamza Yusuf probably thinks the same as her - at least she’s honest. She’s not going to abolish same sex marriage or abortion. I’d just be glad to have a First Minister who knows what a woman is.

Ludo19 · 24/02/2023 20:06

user1471447863 · 24/02/2023 10:21

No need to worry about shouty Kate getting the job.
Golden boy 'Useless' has been chosen by the Murrell cabal as the successor - he is a useful idiot to them. The others are just allowed to play along for show. The Murrells will continue to run the show through their chosen puppet (until the skeletons finish coming out the cupboards and the pair of them get jailed)

Frankly none of the candidates are any good

👏 👏 👏 👏100% this

HBGKC · 24/02/2023 20:20

@TeaKlaxon A key difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual partnerships is the natural capacity for having children.

I think that is a significant enough difference to warrant keeping the historical meaning of the word 'marriage', and to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual unions. But that is merely my personal opinion, and the law now begs to differ. (I completely disagree that holding this opinion makes me a homophobe.)

Seriously, do any of you actually believe there is the slightest chance that gay marriage will be repealed in this country? Or the right to abortion? You really have nothing to worry about, even if Kate Forbes IS elected as leader of the SNP!

(@triforcetotem, pls read the link I posted above, and/or start a new thread to discuss the subtleties of Catholic teaching on homosexuality.)

Anthillveggie · 24/02/2023 20:27

@HBGKC I think that is a significant enough difference to warrant keeping the historical meaning of the word 'marriage', and to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual unions. But that is merely my personal opinion, and the law now begs to differ. (I completely disagree that holding this opinion makes me a homophobe.)**

of course it does. you think same sex couples should not have the legal right to marriage that opposite sex couples, despite it having no negative impact on you or anyone else. you are blatantly homophobic and bigoted, as sewn as your earlier attemp to excuse the portrayal of gay people as being disordered and talking about tendencies and inclinations like uts someone's favourite kind of crisps

Botw1 · 24/02/2023 20:48

@HBGKC

Should infertile couples not be allowed to get married then?

triforcetotem · 24/02/2023 21:01

triforcetotem · 24/02/2023 19:43

If the "inclination or tendancy" is disordered, then that kind of implies the people who have it are disordered.

Show quote history

I read your link and it's awful.

'The Church observes that in some homosexual persons the homosexual inclination (= orientation) comes, it seems, “from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable.”"

And that's not homophobic?

twelly · 24/02/2023 21:30

@Eyerollcentral
I agree that it is "settled" in law but people are still allowed and have a right to their own view. This is the same for many non - party issues.

I also have the view that just because people do not agree with something they are phobic in some way, the problem with current debates accross a range of issues is that when a view is cited that goes against current trend the words phobic/phobia are made which basically stifles debate and really silences people. We live in a world where people are free to hold their own views - it would be unusual for all the candidates to agree 100% with Nicola Sturgeon.