Archive for July 4th, 2009

Thoughts for Pride Day

July 4, 2009

Needless to say, all at Paintbrush Towers are very supportive of Pride, which is going on today.

I was looking through the political intertubes, and found some evidence that not everyone might share our view.

I wish gay people would leave it to the privacy of their own homes, trouble is they don’t, thus Gay pride marches and all that rubbish.

Would you like to try to explain the weird goings in a Gay pride march to a child?

I have nothing against homosexuals if that is the life they want. I do, however, object to homosexuality being pushed so vigorously, especially at young children… As for heterosexual families, you only have to look at history and modern day research to find that heterosexual families provide the greatest stability for children and nations.

Section 28 was a quintessentially liberal measure.

This clause was not designed to prevent equality, but to prevent inequality. The key word is ‘promote’. The threat perceived at the time (right or wrong) was from militant homosexuals who were not content with equality but trying to promote and therefore elevate the status of homosexuality. Please look at the wording of the legislation.

So where were these shocking comments found? Why, on ConservativeHome – the Tory Party’s mainstream internet hub.
Incidentally, I did take up the invitation of the last quoted commenter and looked at the precise wording of the legislation:
Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1) A local authority shall not—

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

This is the problem that a lot on the right don’t get. You can’t “promote” homosexuality; what was being promoted – opposed by the Thatcher Government – was tolerance, and teaching children that gay relationships should be regarded as equal with heterosexual relationships.
This is betrayed by the second clause in the section, banning the teaching of homosexuality “as a pretended family relationship”.
To claim – as the original poster and some of the commenters do – that Section 28 was a “liberal” measure, intended to keep the state essentially neutral on the issue of relationship education, is simply laughable and ignorant of the politics of the time.
Credit where it’s due. I’m glad that Cameron and Johnson have said publicly that they think Section 28 was a mistake, and I’m glad that they are now embracing things like Pride.
But we should be under no illusions: at best, Tories don’t quite get the imperative for government (at all levels) to actively promote tolerance. At worst, they are – as many of the commenters above show themselve to be – grossly intolerant.