ChatterBank3 mins ago
Tory suspended over offensive gay comments.
57 Answers
http://www.independen...comments-1955848.html
Should this Tory candidate have been suspended as a member of the conservative party for making what have been described as offensive gay comments?
/// Mr Lardner wrote: "With experience as a teacher and a believer in parental rights and responsibilities, as your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.///
Have we now lost our right of opinion and free speech?
Should this Tory candidate have been suspended as a member of the conservative party for making what have been described as offensive gay comments?
/// Mr Lardner wrote: "With experience as a teacher and a believer in parental rights and responsibilities, as your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.///
Have we now lost our right of opinion and free speech?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Have we now lost our right of opinion and free speech?"
He's been removed from the Conservative party, not arrested.
Yes, he should have been if the Conservatives are serious about changing. The Conservative voting record on gay rights in recent years has left a lot of LGBT voters suspicious (http://mygayvote.co.uk/). If they're really serious about trying to convince people otherwise then actions do speak louder than words and they're within their rights to suspend him.
He's been removed from the Conservative party, not arrested.
Yes, he should have been if the Conservatives are serious about changing. The Conservative voting record on gay rights in recent years has left a lot of LGBT voters suspicious (http://mygayvote.co.uk/). If they're really serious about trying to convince people otherwise then actions do speak louder than words and they're within their rights to suspend him.
It's estimated that about 6% of the UK population is gay
So I'd like to see Cameron strongly support him and propose re-criminalising homosexuality - especially in the last week before a General election.
If nothing else it would make all his chums in that ultra-rightwing EU grouping he's joined very happy
So I'd like to see Cameron strongly support him and propose re-criminalising homosexuality - especially in the last week before a General election.
If nothing else it would make all his chums in that ultra-rightwing EU grouping he's joined very happy
"hat's what Clause 28 was designed to prevent, gay propaganda, now kids are taught that banditry is normal when it plainly isn't."
Do you have any evidence for this?
I think you (and he) misunderstand 'normal'. I don't think anyone says that homosexuality is universal/common (it obviously isn't), the idea just is that there's nothing wrong with you if you're gay. So if you're at school and find yourself fancying other people of the same gender you're being told that it's not wrong to feel like that, as opposed to saying nothing/turning your back on the issue as happened under S28.
Why does that bother you?
Do you have any evidence for this?
I think you (and he) misunderstand 'normal'. I don't think anyone says that homosexuality is universal/common (it obviously isn't), the idea just is that there's nothing wrong with you if you're gay. So if you're at school and find yourself fancying other people of the same gender you're being told that it's not wrong to feel like that, as opposed to saying nothing/turning your back on the issue as happened under S28.
Why does that bother you?
But Kromo Clause 28 did not have any effect on that, many pro gay pundits portrayed it that way, ie they'd have you believe that a gay teenager was not allowed to even mention it and would not get any help if picked on etc but that's not the case, clause 28 prevented the promotion of homosexualty as a lifestyle choice it stopped Janet and John becoming Janet and Janet etc. Now don't get me wrong some of the people I most admire were gay, Alan Turing for example but that does not mean that it is normal in the biological sense. It's a genetic occurence that would in nature die out after living a standard existance, yes I know some animals have gay behaviour but those ones will not reproduce and that strain will die out. In that sense it's a failed mutation. I know logical thinking gives way to hysteria on this subject so throw your brick bats now!
"Clause 28 did not have any effect on that, many pro gay pundits portrayed it that way, ie they'd have you believe that a gay teenager was not allowed to even mention it and would not get any help if picked on etc but that's not the case"
Have you got any evidence for this? I was lucky enough not to be affected by S28 but overwhelmingly people who were testify this is the case. Or at least ones that I've encountered, if you can link me to one that says otherwise I'll stand corrected.
Plus even if you're right, it's still abominable for any country to have a piece of legislation on the statute books that singles out homosexuality as a 'pretend lifestyle'.
"hat it is normal in the biological sense. It's a genetic occurence that would in nature die out after living a standard existance, yes I know some animals have gay behaviour but those ones will not reproduce and that strain will die out. In that sense it's a failed mutation."
Your argument about genetics assumes that homosexuality is only hereditary directly. So for you to be right that it'll just die out because gay animals won't reproduce, it would have to be a trait that is only passed from one gay animal directly/exclusively to its offspring, which is quite obviously impossible and doesn't happen anyway.
There's quite a lot of theories about the biological origins of homosexuality, but aside from that what relevance does it have? Even if you were right and it was some dying genetic trait, would that be a reason not to tell teenagers that it's perfectly acceptable? Because if Lardner's arguing against anything that actually happens, then that seems to be it.
Have you got any evidence for this? I was lucky enough not to be affected by S28 but overwhelmingly people who were testify this is the case. Or at least ones that I've encountered, if you can link me to one that says otherwise I'll stand corrected.
Plus even if you're right, it's still abominable for any country to have a piece of legislation on the statute books that singles out homosexuality as a 'pretend lifestyle'.
"hat it is normal in the biological sense. It's a genetic occurence that would in nature die out after living a standard existance, yes I know some animals have gay behaviour but those ones will not reproduce and that strain will die out. In that sense it's a failed mutation."
Your argument about genetics assumes that homosexuality is only hereditary directly. So for you to be right that it'll just die out because gay animals won't reproduce, it would have to be a trait that is only passed from one gay animal directly/exclusively to its offspring, which is quite obviously impossible and doesn't happen anyway.
There's quite a lot of theories about the biological origins of homosexuality, but aside from that what relevance does it have? Even if you were right and it was some dying genetic trait, would that be a reason not to tell teenagers that it's perfectly acceptable? Because if Lardner's arguing against anything that actually happens, then that seems to be it.
Some of us are old enough to remember that if we had said anything remotely supportive of what are now called 'Gays' we could have been in very serious trouble.
At least we would have been ostracised at worst we could have lost jobs and at the very worst imprisonment.
Now to say anything at all that doesn't meet their approval we risk all those things over again. It's very confusing for one my age, I hope I'm long gone before it becomes obligatory to be one of them.
At least we would have been ostracised at worst we could have lost jobs and at the very worst imprisonment.
Now to say anything at all that doesn't meet their approval we risk all those things over again. It's very confusing for one my age, I hope I'm long gone before it becomes obligatory to be one of them.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
R1Geezer
You wrote:
"That's what Clause 28 was designed to prevent, gay propaganda"
Not quite true.
...and a really strange thing to say.
Gay propoganda?
Promotion of homosexuality?
I could understand if we were talking about promoting Marxism - but you cannot really 'promote' homosexuality. You can only offer information about it.
You can promote sexuality 'til you're blue in the face, but frankly - you are what you are.
You wrote:
"That's what Clause 28 was designed to prevent, gay propaganda"
Not quite true.
...and a really strange thing to say.
Gay propoganda?
Promotion of homosexuality?
I could understand if we were talking about promoting Marxism - but you cannot really 'promote' homosexuality. You can only offer information about it.
You can promote sexuality 'til you're blue in the face, but frankly - you are what you are.
Steve.5 \ R1Geezer
He's a question...
So what?
So what if kids are taught that gay relationships are equal to straight?
What's gonna happen?
Perhaps one of the following:
1. All teenagers will turn gay, start working out, whilst buying Madonna's back catalogue on iTunes.
2. Kids will have a better understanding of different sexualities and be cool with it.
3. The world will end.
I'm going for the middle one here...what about you two/
Seriously - isn't this a dead subject now?
Okay...there are still straights who gay bash and murder gay men and lesbians (probably in the belief that they are 'not normal'), but these are a tiny minority, and their numbers shrink with each generation, and part of what makes that happen is education.
He's a question...
So what?
So what if kids are taught that gay relationships are equal to straight?
What's gonna happen?
Perhaps one of the following:
1. All teenagers will turn gay, start working out, whilst buying Madonna's back catalogue on iTunes.
2. Kids will have a better understanding of different sexualities and be cool with it.
3. The world will end.
I'm going for the middle one here...what about you two/
Seriously - isn't this a dead subject now?
Okay...there are still straights who gay bash and murder gay men and lesbians (probably in the belief that they are 'not normal'), but these are a tiny minority, and their numbers shrink with each generation, and part of what makes that happen is education.
By suspending this man, it suggests that the Tories are more frightened of alienating non "straight" people than it is in allowing free speech.
This man's "crime" was to go public and it has basically cost him his candidacy of the Tory party. Wonder what percentage of your grass roots Tory would agree with his suspension? If you're counting on fingers, one hand will do.
A PR/PC exercise if ever there was one.
This man's "crime" was to go public and it has basically cost him his candidacy of the Tory party. Wonder what percentage of your grass roots Tory would agree with his suspension? If you're counting on fingers, one hand will do.
A PR/PC exercise if ever there was one.
OrcadianOil
I suspect the Conservative gandees are looking to a new generation of voters. If you asked voters aged 18-40:
"Parents should be able to withdraw their children from schools which advocate equality", then I believe the figures would show a drift from old school thinking.
I know it sounds strange, but each generation gets a little bit more relaxed about things. I know when I was growing up, it was a major shock to see mixed marraiges. Now it's so commonplace that it's become almost irrelevent.
Back in the 70s, the idea of a woman being the CEO of a major company was rare. However, the generation growing up after mine discarded those old ideas ("women should stay at home")
Same thing is goin to happen with the politics of sexual-orientation.
It's already happening.
I suspect the Conservative gandees are looking to a new generation of voters. If you asked voters aged 18-40:
"Parents should be able to withdraw their children from schools which advocate equality", then I believe the figures would show a drift from old school thinking.
I know it sounds strange, but each generation gets a little bit more relaxed about things. I know when I was growing up, it was a major shock to see mixed marraiges. Now it's so commonplace that it's become almost irrelevent.
Back in the 70s, the idea of a woman being the CEO of a major company was rare. However, the generation growing up after mine discarded those old ideas ("women should stay at home")
Same thing is goin to happen with the politics of sexual-orientation.
It's already happening.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.