There's a super article
HERE on
ConservativeHome by Graeme Archer about his inner conflicts over the Sexual Orientation Bill. It's very rare that I find an issue where I can happily argue both sides of the argument and Graeme explains the dilemma very well.
7 comments:
Though if you want to see the traditional Conservative party in all its unreconstructed 'glory' read the comments following Lord Mackie's article (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/01/lord_mackay_wri.html).
Not quite the cuddly Tory party Dave may want us to believe you now are.
It's quite clear where the Tories are at in the Lords...
The Tories did not whip on the issue (as far as I can tell) and 40 odd people went through the lobby against the regulations including a number of front-bench spokespeople.
So much for Cameron's gay-friendly party.
Hmm...not convinced it is simply about being gay-friendly. I am heterosexual [but sadly falling behind on moisturising, so no longer 'metrosexual'] but pro-diversity.
The tricky thing is that many people who are religious are against ALL sex outside of marriage, heterosexual as well as homosexual. So I don't think one can dismiss them as 'gay-hating'.
Clearly we have to defend the human right not to be bullied or vilified, and the employment rights of gay people. But if that extends to legal powers to tell, say, Bed & Breakfast owners who they have to allow in their premises it will not solve the problem. Those people will simply shut up shop. There has to be an element of 'carrot and stick' here.
I feel much the same way Iain but i also feel that this issue has been mired by association with other social changes and legislation which makes life difficult . There is no reason for gay men and women to be against marriage and the family but it increasingly gets bundled in with socilally divisive legislation that does .Its almost as if the state wishes to make "us" into enemies when we are not
The problems gay men face are not as far as I can see so dreadful as to require such illiberal legislation. On balance
many people who are religious are against ALL sex outside of marriage, heterosexual as well as homosexual
The same peeple are also against gay marrriage so I think your point is less secure than it would appear
I enjoyed Peter Hitchins when he said racism was appalling an any hotelier who refused to put up a black couple should be prosecuted. But if they didn't want a gay couple in their hotel that was a matter of concience and perfectly fine.
Since I'm a white gay man and my boyfriend is Asian if we are ever turned away from a hotel we can be assured that Mr Hitchins brain will explode as he tries to work out exactly what he thinks about it.
Hmmm, where's that phone number of that lovely hotel in Scotland.
This point applies more widely of course, is it acceptable for me and my boyfriend to be denied services because he is asian? No. Because he is gay? Of course not.
Quite how any gay man can vote conservatice post Clause 28 still bemuses me. The party told me my life was less valid than that of a straight man and no matter what they say since then I'll never forget that.
David, I totally agree.
Also, anon 2:15 - people who are religious may be against all sex, but I dont see them stopping unmarried heterosexual couples having sex in their hotel rooms.
I like what Lord Avebury said:
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the hypothetical person who runs a boarding house has such an objection to this particular sin, should they not prohibit all the other seven deadly sins while somebody is in the bedroom of their house?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70109-0012.htm
Post a Comment