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?

Exactly this. I also find it rather strange how Ash Regan seems to be being totally ignored in this contest. Why do you think that is OP?

Of course that’s homophobic because the legal requirement for marriage has never included a requirement for a capacity to procreate. That’s why we don’t exclude post menopausal women and infertile couples from marrying.

So if you want to deny gay couples the right to marry on the basis that they can’t fulfil a criteria you don’t apply to straight couples, of course that’s homophobic.

I don’t really care if debate about my right to get married is ‘stifled’.

And until someone produces a non-homophobic objection to gay marriage, I’ll continue to express the view that it is a homophobic position to hold.

If the clip I saw on the news tonight is indicative it’s very easy to see why.

Totally unable to answer a basic question about how her independence plan would work in practice. What happens when she demands negotiations with the UK Government and they don’t show up.

Legally civil partnership = marriage.

This is my view.

Same. I find it quite frightening that women don’t see what a threat this disingenuous man is to women. But hey apparently as long as he didn’t vote against gay marriage (by skipping the vote) he is streets ahead of a woman who said I am a Christian and live my life by the tenets of my church and won’t lie to you. 🤷‍♀️

Then there’s no reason not to just call CPs marriages then, is there.

The point is it stifles debate - some people might not care but a lot do, but more important is that it is the same approach to other issues. People are allowed to have those views and allowed to express them - it is possible to disagree with gay marriage because of how marriage is viewed. The phobic allegation is really in many ways quite a lazy allegation in many ways, as it is used to slur something with often a deeply held conviction. I think it was Chris Bryant who made the point about disagreeing with gay marriage but being respectful of other life choices.

As I already said, I really don’t care if debate about my right to marry is ‘stifled’.

And calling opposition to marriage equality homophobic isn’t lazy - it’s true. People can hold whatever belief they want - but others can also rightly point out when a belief is homophobic.

@HBGKC

Or we can subscribe to neither?

I don't want either

It should come as a shock to no one that Kathleen Stock thinks it’s unreasonable of gay people and their allies to not support someone who doesn’t support their rights.

Not sure how much more it will take for people to accept that transphobia and homophobia go hand in hand.

Despite Kathleen Stock and many other GC people being gay? Wrong sort of gay then?

@TeaKlaxon do you mean by this:

"Not sure how much more it will take for people to accept that transphobia and homophobia go hand in hand"

...that you think Kathleen Stock is a transphobe and homophobe..?

@TeaKlaxon
In a democratic society everyone is entitled to be able to discuss their views it should not be one sided. The word phobic is used in a lazy way by many just the same as safeguarding is, as was health and safety - almost as if you state that word/s and automatically the point is non-negotiable. Issues and views are seldom clear cut - there are a whole range of opinions and in this country people are entitled to them. Interestingly it is generally those with christian views that are more likely to find themselves under scrutiny.

Apologies, I wanted to provide a better link and précis of Prof. Stock's article, which is well worth reading (so I asked MNHQ to delete my previous post).

https://unherd.com/2023/02/the-crucifixion-of-kate-forbes/

Hopefully that works!

A preview:

"A[nother] facile equation made by those religiously invested in victimhood for LGBTQI+ people is that any objection to liberalisation must be rooted in some kind of “phobia”. In practice, like everyone else, Christians range from kind, tolerant, and generous people to bigoted nutcases, with many shades of grey in between.
But Forbes is unlikely to be given the benefit of the doubt. To do so would be to squander a rare chance to perpetuate the hysterical fantasy that LGBTQI+ people in Britain, generally, are permanently a hair’s breadth away from malicious destruction — even as the Equality Act explicitly protects both gay and trans people, the BBC hosts dozens of positive stories about trans youth, millions of pounds roll into charity coffers, gay men rule entertainment telly, lesbians rule women’s sport, and entire classrooms change their pronouns to the delight of their teachers."

@HBGKC

Is Prof Stock a Christian?

A gay person who claims that LGBT+ people are being ‘hysterical’ for opposing someone who believes their relationships are inferior? Yes, absolutely the wrong sort of gay.

My right to marry is non-negotiable.

Not as far as I know!
I doubt it; more an atheist, liberal, lefty type, I'd say.

From her Wiki page: "Janice Turner in The Times described her, amongst other terms, as a "left-wing lesbian".[70][41] "

You can be a left wing lesbian christian

Although it sounds more like it's OK to be homophobic as long as you're gc too.

For sure, it's possible to be a left wing lesbian Christian. Do you think she is one? If so, why?

Are you saying she's homophobic?

The rights are granted by law - yes that is correct but the right for someone to believe something different is also a right. In a democratic world people are allowed to have opinions and allowed to voice them.