Homophobe Equalities Minister

[Fareast]

Seems a bit strange, having an ' Equality Minister ' [ or some such inane title ] at all. Does it mean that we ought to think that everyone is emotionally, physically, intellectually and morally equal ? Or does it mean that everyone being equal, is what we all ought to be aiming for ? Or does it mean that we all ought to have the same ' starting line ' in life ?

 

Anyone of the above is not only a stupid pipe-dream but would lead, surely, to such a boring, horrible world that most people would ' equally ' top themselves after about 10 years. Are we not allowed to dislike, disrespect, have contempt for, hate, ANYONE ? Are we hardly to have strong opinions or feelings at all ? Do we all have to dance round maypoles and be happy-clappy, 24 hours a day ?

 

It 's very strange that the sort of people who moan about lack of equality, are very quick to jump on anyone who criticises or expresses disapproval of any particular group or type of person [ s ] !

 

I suppose it 's fairly normal, when one 's about 8 years old to believe that we are all equal or all have the same value......etc......etc.....but one would think that adults would be able to see the obvious truth-----that it is virtually impossible, considering the diversity of humankind, to have any of the equalities they are pointlessly striving for.

[Plain Talker]

Surely just because she is Equalities Minister doesn't mean she has to agree on some of the more controversial points.

 

For example, she voted in favour of Civil Partnerships, but voted against gays and lesbians having the same right to adopt and have children.

 

The latter one is her view, and one I tend to agree with (although I really haven't looked into all the studies.)

 

Having both a male and female rolemodel is hugely important, and in places where that can be ensured (in the adoption system), perhaps that should be taken into account.

 

Whether or not the latter is her view, her remit is to vote the way her constituents wish. She's elected to represent them. Her own agenda has to go out of the window.

 

Why shouldn't gay couples have kids, if they want? In the 21st century, FGS, we shouldn't even need to be discussing this.

 

You can have male/female role-models for your children without having to be married to them.

[SimpyTimpy]

Because of the suppression of homosexuality what evidence is there to use as a counter balance to that assertion? I agree to a degree that children need good role models but not necessarily on the basis of sexual orientation. Considering the rate of abuse by Male/female partnerships and the way in which marriages break down on a regular basis, it would seem the evidence for "normal" relationships should also be questioned? If we're using "role models" in relation to our children that is.

 

I've not been able to read too many studies into parenting roles, although it was something we looked at when studying Psychology back when I was doing A Levels.

 

My personal perspective is that the mother and father role in children's development is important. Although I agree with the civil rights of homosexuality, I do think that when it comes to matters such as this, it should be identified that it doesn't harm a child's development rather than another way around.

 

I guess on the most part it's a hunch and logical assumpsion that having different sex parents would be better. That's not to say of course that same-sex couples would be bad?!

 

Confusing myself a little here.

[hard2miss]

What gets me is how people draw the conclussion that you anti something because your not pro it.

 

So what if she did not vote for this and that, how does that mean she is against homosexuality ?

 

That's like saying because I don't think the burka should be worn in this country makes me anti Islamic.

[NoddyHolder]

Whether or not the latter is her view, her remit is to vote the way her constituents wish. She's elected to represent them. Her own agenda has to go out of the window.

 

Why shouldn't gay couples have kids, if they want? In the 21st century, FGS, we shouldn't even need to be discussing this.

 

You can have male/female role-models for your children without having to be married to them.

The lack of respect and family values that seems to rife these days seems to contradict that statement,kids need a stable home a mother and a father,not to put into a position where they are looked upon as something strange,and like it or not that is what happens with the offspring of same sex couples.

[Plain Talker]

What gets me is how people draw the conclussion that you anti something because your not pro it.

 

So what if she did not vote for this and that, how does that mean she is against homosexuality ?

 

That's like saying because I don't think the burka should be worn in this country makes me anti Islamic.

 

You don't need to speak out about the Burqa to prove your anti-Islamic credentials. You've done enough, without having to do that, too, to prove them quite adequately.

[Plain Talker]

The lack of respect and family values that seems to rife these days seems to contradict that statement,kids need a stable home a mother and a father,not to put into a position where they are looked upon as something strange,and like it or not that is what happens with the offspring of same sex couples.

 

rubbish, nh...

 

It doesn't matter a fig what gender a/ either parent is, if the parent is loving and nurturing toward the child.

 

As someone else pointed out, there are plenty of delinquents who have both parents at home, who are of opposite genders.

 

The only need a child has for a male and a female parent is at the moment of conception, when the male and female gametes meet, to create the conceptus. What a child needs, is love, food, warmth, and an encouraging environment in which to thrive.

[Michael_W]

Same sex parentage is not 'normal' and the fact that same sex relationships cannot spawn their own offspring backs that argument, it's not natural nor should it be encouraged, we will be needing a bloody Minister for Children of Same Sex couples next....jeeez !

[plekhanov]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/12/analysis-how-pro-gay-is-the-new-home-secretary-and-minister-for-equality-theresa-may/

 

Is this not a bit like appointing an illiterate to run the department for education?

It's like Ruth Kelly never left, still Cameron following Blair's habit of putting homophobes in the equalities job aside on the whole Pink News seem pretty happy with how things turned out:

 

Comment: David Cameron and Nick Clegg's shotgun civil partnership is best option for the gay community

 

By PinkNews.co.uk Comment • May 13, 2010 - 0:12

 

In many ways, you should be ecstatic, by no small measure the majority of the LGBT community according to PinkNews.co.uk polls voted for the Liberal Democrats, very few voted Conservative. The electoral system, with its inherent unfairness for a party with widespread but not concentrated support like the Lib Dems was always going to end up with the Liberal Democrats in bed with either Labour or the Conservatives in a hung parliament.

 

The Liberal Democrats made the right choice in partner no matter how uncomfortable it feels to have a work and pensions secretary (Iain Duncan Smith) who disagreed with equal parental rights for lesbian couples, a Conservative party chairman who once claimed the abolition of section 28 meant children were being "propositioned" for gay relationships (Sayeeda Warsi), or a minister for equality (Theresa May) who has consistently (bar the crucial civil partnership act) voted against gay rights -although she does seem an odd choice. Some might be upset that we have gone from three openly gay cabinet ministers to none.

 

An alliance with Labour had that party agreed to it would have resulted in an unstable Government and a hasty second general election. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are broke while the Tories would have relied on Lord Ashcroft's cash.

 

The Conservatives would likely have won a small majority in a second election and we'd be soon be living in a country where 'homosceptics' or 'homophobic' MPs would not be forced to sit as they are now around the cabinet table with MPs like Chris Huhne or Nick Clegg and their excellent voting record. David Cameron would have to rely on the votes of those in the right of his party (not the Liberal Democrats) to pass key legislation which may have have led to deals over LGBT rights, or more likely, LGBT issues would slip down the agenda.

 

If the Liberal Democrats sat on the side and didn't join a coalition with either party, David Cameron would still have become prime minister of a minority government and likely called a second general election. The outcome would probably have been the same, a small majority for the Conservatives.

 

In many ways, the civil partnership with the Liberal Democrats may allow David Cameron to lead the progressive, liberal Government he has repeatedly said he wished to form but has perhaps been held back by some of his own colleagues, the old school MPs he inherited. Mr Cameron can be bolder and truer perhaps to his own beliefs with Mr Clegg than without, perhaps finally legalising full gay marriage, something Nick Clegg told PinkNews.co.uk he was strongly in favour of.

 

But if Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg really want to lead a progressive, liberal Government they must think carefully about ending the practice of giving a free vote on LGBT equality issues. The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people must be fought and thought about on the same basis as race, sex or disability. There must be an end to the absurdity of being able to vote on conscience. This new Government must at the very least allow those unfortunate MPs with conscientious objections to gay equality to simply abstain but not vote against the rights of millions of law abiding LGBT citizens.

 

And what of Labour? They have achieved so much for LGBT rights. Some of its changes were triggered by European court rulings but the overall pattern of changes were huge. An equal age of consent, gays serving in the military, civil partnerships, gay adoption, protection from discrimination in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services, gender recognition, lesbian IVF rights and so much more. They leave with a good record and have been good allies to our community.

 

But it's not their time, the leadership election that awaits will be a good opportunity to find out how they can further serve our community.

 

For now, we might be living in the words of Messrs Cameron and Clegg in an era of "new politics", so should we give them a chance? Let's test them and see whether together they can advance our rights and fight for LGBT rights across the world. There's a good chance that together they might.

[Plain Talker]

Same sex parentage is not 'normal' and the fact that same sex relationships cannot spawn their own offspring backs that argument, it's not natural nor should it be encouraged, we will be needing a bloody Minister for Children of Same Sex couples next....jeeez !

 

what about the 10/15 % of hetero couples who have difficulties conceiving? THEY cannot "Spawn their own offspring" so by dint, they too will be unnatural, and shouldn't be encouraged.....

 

You haven't really thought that one through very well, have you?