Westminster Politics

NinjaFletch said:
It's an incredible statement:

'I am resigning because leading the Liberal Democrats is incompatible with my being a homophobe' :wenger:
Click to expand...

I actually think it's more incredible the other way. It's now impossible for the Liberal party to be lead by a Christian even if that leader consistently votes for liberal policies with regards to sexuality.

Not so liberal then.
 
Untied said:
I actually think it's more incredible the other way. It's now impossible for the Liberal party to be lead by a Christian even if that leader consistently votes for liberal policies with regards to sexuality.

Not so liberal then.
Click to expand...
Is it feck.

Plenty of Christians don't have weird stances on gay sex.
 
Untied said:
I actually think it's more incredible the other way. It's now impossible for the Liberal party to be lead by a Christian even if that leader consistently votes for liberal policies with regards to sexuality.

Not so liberal then.
Click to expand...
It is perfectly possible to be Christian and not puritanical about gay sex.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Is it feck.

Plenty of Christians don't have weird stances on gay sex.
Click to expand...

Fingeredmouse said:
It is perfectly possible to be Christian and not puritanical about gay sex.
Click to expand...

But not enforcing your private views on other people IS Liberalism

Apparently the Liberal Democrats now believe that you have to have a particular private view about gay sex, which is not at all liberal.
 
If it's Swinson, there will be only one party left that hasn't had a female leader.
 
Alex99 said:
He voted against a law that made it illegal for public services to be denied to gay people.

He voted to allow registrars to refuse to carry out same-sex marriages on religious grounds, as well as separately voting to increase protection for those refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.

He abstained from a key vote to legalise same-sex marriage.

He voted against the Equality Act Regulations regarding sexual orientation which criminalised a lot of discrimination against gay people, which was actually against his party.

His record isn't as bad as some, but it's not the best and he's certainly not consistent with acts for equality and tolerance.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the first two.

I kind of liked Farron, I think it's a shame he was hounded out because of his views if I'm honest.
 
Untied said:
But not enforcing your private views on other people IS Liberalism

Apparently the Liberal Democrats now believe that you have to have a particular private view about gay sex, which is not at all liberal.
Click to expand...

If he'd kept them private it would be one thing, but he's been weirdly evangelical on this matter whilst also trying hard not to actually say what he thinks apart from on abortion where he was just an outright cock:

"Take the issue of abortion. Personally I wish I could argue it away. Abortion is wrong,"
 
NinjaFletch said:
If he'd kept them private it would be one thing, but he's been weirdly evangelical on this matter whilst also trying hard not to actually say what he thinks apart from on abortion where he was just an outright cock:

"Take the issue of abortion. Personally I wish I could argue it away. Abortion is wrong,"
Click to expand...

Why's that him being a cock?
 
In general a liberal can be someone who perhaps has diverging views on a number of matters but fundamentally respects the right for people to hold whatever ones they like; the problem with Farron was that being anti-gay (is rightfully) seen as wrong in modern society. It's all well and good to say you accept homosexuality reservedly, but you're hardly making people feel particularly comfortable with themselves if you're giving the impression that you'll tolerate them but don't approve of them. Even if Farron's personal views didn't affect his voting records, I can understand why a lot of people would either be put off completely, or very, very reserved about him.
 
We should also recognise that he was just not very good at being a party leader. That was enough to give him the boot even aside from his backward social views.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Why's that him being a cock?
Click to expand...

Well firstly it was from an interview given to the Salvation Army magazine. In terms of organisations that a Lib Dem leader shouldn't be giving interviews with the Salvation Army are right up there. Secondly, the idea that the leader of a liberal party would seemingly support never having legalised abortion in the first place goes against virtually everything he professes to believe in.
 
NinjaFletch said:
If he'd kept them private it would be one thing, but he's been weirdly evangelical on this matter whilst also trying hard not to actually say what he thinks apart from on abortion where he was just an outright cock:

"Take the issue of abortion. Personally I wish I could argue it away. Abortion is wrong,"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's entirely his fault though. The media tried to gotcha him on "Is gay sex wrong", which I honestly don't care about the answer to as long as the person in question is not forcing their answer on other people who think differently. *

And he clearly does think gay sex is wrong and felt forced into saying otherwise by the media and his party. That abortion remark is more problematic (the wish to argue it away), and I definitely take the point that he has put his foot in his mouth on these issues a lot. But there is nothing in his voting record that suggests he is an illiberal politician and it is a shame that he has been hounded out because of views that don't seem to have influenced his votes. And because I actually think he was a fairly positive role model for more extreme/fundamental religious people — Have your beliefs but don't force them on everyone else. But he was also a bit shit so i'm not going to fall over myself defending him :lol:

* I should add that I'm speaking from a position of privilege here. No politicians are implying they 'tolerate' my sexuality, or privately think it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Untied said:
I'm not sure that's entirely his fault though. The media tried to gotcha him on "Is gay sex wrong", which I honestly don't care about the answer to as long as the person in question is not forcing their answer on other people who think differently.

And he clearly does think gay sex is wrong and felt forced into saying otherwise by the media and his party. That abortion remark is more problematic (the wish to argue it away), and I definitely take the point that he has put his foot in his mouth on these issues a lot. But there is nothing in his voting record that suggests he is an illiberal politician and it is a shame that he has been hounded out because of views that don't seem to have influenced his votes. And because I actually think he was a fairly positive role model for more extreme/fundamental religious people — Have your beliefs but don't force them on everyone else. But he was also a bit shit so i'm not going to fall over myself defending him :lol:
Click to expand...

The media only had it because he attempting to have his cake and eat it.

He frequently gave interviews about how important his faith was to him in order to appeal to the sort of christian voters you are talking about. Had he done what he professed to want to do (namely shut the feck up about being a christian and keep it in his private life) it wouldn't have become an issue at all.
 
NinjaFletch said:
The media only had it because he attempting to have his cake and eat it.

He frequently gave interviews about how important his faith was to him in order to appeal to the sort of christian voters you are talking about. Had he done what he professed to want to do (namely shut the feck up about being a christian and keep it in his private life) it wouldn't have become an issue at all.
Click to expand...

The media isn't that nuanced. It just made good TV to make him squirm failing to answer it.

But true, it could (and, as a Lib Dem, should) have stayed a private faith - e.g. Bair's
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well firstly it was from an interview given to the Salvation Army magazine. In terms of organisations that a Lib Dem leader shouldn't be giving interviews with the Salvation Army are right up there. Secondly, the idea that the leader of a liberal party would seemingly support never having legalised abortion in the first place goes against virtually everything he professes to believe in.
Click to expand...

How come?

I'm not sure, you can be against abortion and be a liberal. Not every single issue has to be seen through the same lens.
 
Untied said:
The media isn't that nuanced. It just made good TV to make him squirm failing to answer it.

But true, it could (and, as a Lib Dem, should) have stayed a private faith - e.g. Bair's
Click to expand...

It depends how you view the sequence of events I guess. He was only asked about it in the first place because he said some illiberal things, he only squirmed because they had him, it only became a big story because he squirmed. Being quietly christian – like the vast majority of our politicians still I believe, but this might have changed – and voting as he did wouldn't have caused the questions in the first place. It was only because he was trying to bang the 'you can be a christian and a liberal' drum it got bought out and it turned out that, for him, apparently you can't be after all.

2 Man Midfield said:
How come?

I'm not sure, you can be against abortion and be a liberal. Not every single issue has to be seen through the same lens.
Click to expand...

https://libcom.org/library/starvation-army-twelve-reasons-reject-salvation-army and for a more balanced view: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/salvationarmy_1.shtml

The Salvation Army do do a lot of good work, of that I have no doubt (and know first hand, my grandparents are a part of it), but they hold views that are antithetical to everything liberalism should stand for.

On abortion I do not believe that's true. You can be personally against abortion, and I mean that in the sense that you personally would not have one or be supportive of a partner getting one, but you can't deny the right of others to choose. By definition that would make you pro-choice.
 
Alex99 said:
He voted against a law that made it illegal for public services to be denied to gay people.

He voted to allow registrars to refuse to carry out same-sex marriages on religious grounds, as well as separately voting to increase protection for those refusing to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies.

He abstained from a key vote to legalise same-sex marriage.

He voted against the Equality Act Regulations regarding sexual orientation which criminalised a lot of discrimination against gay people, which was actually against his party.

His record isn't as bad as some, but it's not the best and he's certainly not consistent with acts for equality and tolerance.
Click to expand...

Eh fair enough then I hadn't done my research properly.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
I actually agree with the first two.

I kind of liked Farron, I think it's a shame he was hounded out because of his views if I'm honest.
Click to expand...

You agree that public services should be denied to gay people?
 
NinjaFletch said:
It depends how you view the sequence of events I guess. He was only asked about it in the first place because he said some illiberal things, he only squirmed because they had him, it only became a big story because he squirmed. Being quietly christian – like the vast majority of our politicians still I believe, but this might have changed – and voting as he did wouldn't have caused the questions in the first place. It was only because he was trying to bang the 'you can be a christian and a liberal' drum it got bought out and it turned out that, for him, apparently you can't be after all.



https://libcom.org/library/starvation-army-twelve-reasons-reject-salvation-army and for a more balanced view: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/salvationarmy_1.shtml

The Salvation Army do do a lot of good work, of that I have no doubt (and know first hand, my grandparents are a part of it), but they hold views that are antithetical to everything liberalism should stand for.

On abortion I do not believe that's true. You can be personally against abortion, and I mean that in the sense that you personally would not have one or be supportive of a partner getting one, but you can't deny the right of others to choose. By definition that would make you pro-choice.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, can't say I know anything about them other than the fact they're a charity tbh, so wasn't really sure.

Abortion is kind of an all-encompassing issue though. I don't really place it under the same banner as gay marriage say, which it's easy to ignore because it's none of your business, because by definition it's a bit wider than that. If you genuinely believe that to abort a baby is murder then it's very easy to see why you would want that outlawed for all of society and not just as a personal choice. I personally wouldn't murder another human being, but I also think it's wrong for other people to do so as well. So I think by the nature of the argument it's a wider issue, and not one that can fall under the same 'mind your business' argument as gay marriage.
 
Alex99 said:
You agree that public services should be denied to gay people?
Click to expand...

Could you define a public service? I might've got the wrong end of the stick. I had in my head scenarios like that cake maker being forced to cater to a gay couple. I don't think in a capitalist society that anyone has the right to anyone else's labour. I guess this would be private services, so I'd need to hear a couple of your examples before giving my opinion really.
 
It's possible that I might have misheard the rather strange resignation speech but was he saying that people had taken rather illiberal views of his, erm... rather illiberal views?

He was sounding a bit daft to me, tbh.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Could you define a public service? I might've got the wrong end of the stick. I had in my head scenarios like that cake maker being forced to cater to a gay couple. I don't think in a capitalist society that anyone has the right to anyone else's labour. I guess this would be private services, so I'd need to hear a couple of your examples before giving my opinion really.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

NHS, education, social housing etc.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Ok yeah I take that one back then. Not sure how you can get behind anything discriminatory on behalf of the state, but I would argue private businesses are a different matter.
Click to expand...

I do get your point about private services - that they should be free to make their own choices, and ideally any business who seeks to ostracise gay people would hopefully see a decline in business anyway, but I do think it's a slightly dodgy route to go down; if you're, say, in a relatively small, rural area, you may find yourself in a position where you've realistically only got one or two types of certain local service available to you; if they're denying you service then it's blatant discrimination that can have a negative impact upon your life based on your sexuality.

It's a difficult one because by punishing certain types of illiberalism we're arguing being kind of illiberal in doing so, but at the same time I'm not sure discrimination like that should be particularly tolerated at all, irrespective of the sector it's in.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Ok yeah I take that one back then. Not sure how you can get behind anything discriminatory on behalf of the state, but I would argue private businesses are a different matter.
Click to expand...
Private businesses should not be a different matter.

Imagine booking a hotel to stay in and then being turned away with your partner on arrival because of your sexuality. Should a gay couple have to ring up every business they plan to use in advance and ask 'sorry to bother you, but do you mind serving gay people or are you a bigot? Also, just want to check you're cool about serving black people?'

It would be a crazy and hugely discriminatory situation if businesses were legally allowed to discriminate.
 
Cheesy said:
I do get your point about private services - that they should be free to make their own choices, and ideally any business who seeks to ostracise gay people would hopefully see a decline in business anyway, but I do think it's a slightly dodgy route to go down; if you're, say, in a relatively small, rural area, you may find yourself in a position where you've realistically only got one or two types of certain local service available to you; if they're denying you service then it's blatant discrimination that can have a negative impact upon your life based on your sexuality.

It's a difficult one because by punishing certain types of illiberalism we're arguing being kind of illiberal in doing so, but at the same time I'm not sure discrimination like that should be particularly tolerated at all, irrespective of the sector it's in.
Click to expand...


MikeUpNorth said:
Private businesses should not be a different matter.

Imagine booking a hotel to stay in and then being turned away with your partner on arrival because of your sexuality. Should a gay couple have to ring up every business they plan to use in advance and ask 'sorry to bother you, but do you mind serving gay people or are you a bigot?' It would be a crazy and hugely discriminatory situation.
Click to expand...

If it's against the religious beliefs of that person to serve anyone, be it because they're gay or otherwise then they should definitely have the right to not give their services. Even if it's not for religious reasons, they might literally just feel like acting a dick and denying someone their service arbitrarily. As I said before I don't think anyone has the right to someone else's labour.

They have the right to do so just as those affected have the right to publicise it. In a capitalist society it's unlikely such a business would survive in this day and age anyway.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Ok yeah I take that one back then. Not sure how you can get behind anything discriminatory on behalf of the state, but I would argue private businesses are a different matter.
Click to expand...
I think you're basing too much on that cake nonsense.

I can sympathise with not wanting to write something you consider political, on a cake. I cannot sympathise with pretty much every other area where private businesses could discriminate.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I think you're basing too much on that cake nonsense.

I can sympathise with not wanting to write something you consider political, on a cake. I cannot sympathise with pretty much every other area where private businesses could discriminate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I just think it comes down to a simple rule really, which is that no-one should be able to force you to do anything. Isn't that an inherently liberal philosophy?
 
2 Man Midfield said:
If it's against the religious beliefs of that person to serve anyone, be it because they're gay or otherwise then they should definitely have the right to not give their services. Even if it's not for religious reasons, they might literally just feel like acting a dick and denying someone their service arbitrarily. As I said before I don't think anyone has the right to someone else's labour.
Click to expand...
So it should be legal to refuse to rent a house to a black family? Or to deny a gay couple their hotel booking? Or to refuse to serve a Muslim person in a shop?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
So it should be legal to refuse to rent a house to a black family? Or to deny a gay couple their hotel booking? Or to refuse to serve a Muslim person in a shop?
Click to expand...

Depends. If you're a private landlord, yes. If it's your hotel, yes. If it's your shop, yes.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Perhaps. I just think it comes down to a simple rule really, which is that no-one should be able to force you to do anything. Isn't that an inherently liberal philosophy?
Click to expand...
We do this debate an awful lot. It always comes back to the fact that tolerance shouldn't include tolerating intolerance.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
If it's against the religious beliefs of that person to serve anyone, be it because they're gay or otherwise then they should definitely have the right to not give their services. Even if it's not for religious reasons, they might literally just feel like acting a dick and denying someone their service arbitrarily. As I said before I don't think anyone has the right to someone else's labour.

They have the right to do so just as those affected have the right to publicise it. In a capitalist society it's unlikely such a business would survive in this day and age anyway.
Click to expand...

This, again, is all well and good in principle - when it comes down to practice it can become incredibly difficult and may limit members of the LGBT community. What if someone is, say, going to work for a week in a fairly remote area with one hotel on offer, and that hotel refuses them service on the basis of their sexuality? It's a fairly arbitrary scenario, granted, but it's still something that could occur and something that would hugely disadvantage someone based on their sexuality alone. That shouldn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.