Yes it will, just show them Ann dancing.

The key to successful sex education for 'kiddies' is to teach them about relationships. Sex education in the UK is based on science, not humanities. In Holland, they have the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, yet have a thriving sex industry and a liberal attitude towards sex. The two are not mutually exclusive if you teach children about love, respect and tolerance, however you choose to express your sexuality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...23/schools.uk2

Don't forget that the Catholic church, of which Ann is a member, condemns the use of condoms, and has been accused of promulgating the myth in Africa that its use spreads AIDS, rather than reducing it. That, of course, is another debate, but for me is all of a piece with the narrow-minded attitude of homophobia.

This is a great post, thanks.

I did say I don't know if Ann is homophobic. You can say that I'm arguing semantics, but if the word is now taken to mean any one who doesn't believe in equal rights for homosexuals...yes, I don't agree that that's what the word means. Unfortunately, anti-gay legislators use this issue to divide people, and as a fear tactic that has no basis in any facts. Some of them in the US are homophobic, as they have been caught out, but I wouldn't put Ann in that pile. She herself may or may not be homophobic, but she caters to those who are.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense or not...she could be homophobic, but I don't see any evidence of that. I would say she is prejudiced and anti-gay, but that her extreme right wing views are blatantly part of an agenda to get votes or make money rather than based on her own fears.

gross...

@ Philly1234 and someprevious posters... I think not believing in equal rights does make you a bigot in this day and age frankly. It's discrimination, so yes... it's homophobic, or racist, or antisemetic, bigoted against or whoever you think doesn't deserve to be treated equally.

I think prejudice is the same as all those things, and definitely if you act upon it as well as just 'think' it.

Also I don't have a problem with using homophobic do describe mild things like bias... maybe even steretyping. It does however annoy me when people get out the greek dictionary and claim they aren't 'afraid', so they can't possibly be a homophobe.

Well, I think in this context, it's not just the beliefs but the actions - she's actively campaigned, as an elected representative, to both support discriminatory legislation and to oppose equality legislation.

So it's not like she's just sat there thinking this stuff, she has acted.


Erm, if someone is prejudiced and anti-gay, I think that does mean homophobic.

Surely?

homophobic - prejudiced against homosexual people
discriminatory, prejudiced - being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand

the free online dictionary would seem to agree that Ann is homophobic in that she does have a belief formed before hand that has meant her not supporting laws that would lead towards equalising rights for a group of people , in this case homosexuals and is thus is showing prejudiced behavious towards this group of people

as you say this is your interpretation of the word homophobic and does not seem to agree with dictionary defintions of homophbia

and so in your opinion you think she is not BUT your opinion is contrary to the accepted definition

now I could say that an apple is long, curved and yellow , but this would not be in accord with the accepted view of what an apple is and as such if I tried to argue that my opinion was valid then I would be on very sticky ground here

Granted this is an extreme example, but if you wish to argue semantics perhaps it would be wise to look up definitions of the word you have chosen to have a different opinion of then the dictionary deems to be the normal meaning

What about women fighting "in the trenches" alongside men?

This was banned until very recently in the UK forces (it might still be) and was so for a very specific military reason, namely that men react differently when there are women around, which might disrupt traditional command structures and expectations in the heat of battle. Call me sexist, but if senior military types thought keeping women from the front lines was a good idea, then I'd tend to agree with them, even though it's blatantly sexist. If this ban has been removed, it will have been due to the Human Rights Act rather than any rational assessment of what's right for society overall.

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves for the benefit of themselves and the "greater good".

Whether protecting 16 year old male homosexuals from themselves until they are 18 is a good thing is open to debate.

On a related note, the age of consent is not the same across the European Union. If the EU decided to equalise at the lowest level (14 in Italy, I believe), which the UK couldn't veto under post Lisbon Treaty QMV, how would we feel? Whilst it would be right from a discrimination viewpoint - i.e. why should 14 year olds in Italy be able to "frolick" legally when British 14 year olds can't - would it necessarily be a sensible move for society?

On the women soldiers thing IIRC correctly studies have shown a positive benefot to both sexes when woman are allowed to be on front line duties

If the acedemic studies shoe that it would be of benefit to all and yet senior military personel decided not do do so , does this not make then bigoted and prejudiced

The teenage pregency rate is down form the UK's in Italy

perhaps they are doing something right ( actually I think 14 is too low but you have to ask why the Italians are doing better than us )

But we digress: Yes Ann is homophobic despite the attempt to tamper with the dictionary definition of homophobia

They say the same about gays in america and used to here... that they can't serve openly because "it puts straight people off killing" or something like that
I agree there might be circumstances where discriminaition is a positive, I don't think that's a particulaly good example, as it almost certainly is based on "tradition wow-wot-wot" that you have in the army which is a boys club. I've seen the studies that claim men are put off and find them dubious, but anyway why should women be descriminated against because men can't be professionable? It's one of those things they would take time and training to get over.
They said the same thing about blacks and women in schools.


Why do you think homosexuals should be more protected "from themselves" than anyone else?

First point - The official answer is that men's first instincts in combat with a woman would be to protect the woman, rather than obey orders. In extremis, a well-meaning male soldier might save his female colleague in such circumstances, to the detriment of the rest of that particular campaign. Sometimes comrades need to be sacrificed for the greater good. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Don't know if it's true, and it certainly is an extreme example. I'd agree that it should be presumed that discrimination is wrong, but with a rational mechanism to challenge such an assumption, without a hysterical (in its true interpretation) reaction.

Second point - I'm not sure I do. But I don't think we can glibly say that discrimination is always worse than the situation that results from the discrimination. (As I mentioned earlier, teachers aren't allowed to seduce pupils under the age of 18, because of their special position of trust, and I don't know of anyone campaigning for equal rights for teachers who fancy their pupils!)

There's something potentially "not right" about any 16 year old being seduced by a much older person. In the heterosexual situation, there's no stigma associated with the basic sexual aspect of such a situation, where in the homosexual situation, the youngster has the potential for being stigmatised for a homosexual relationship they were coerced into simply because they were too young to handle the situation.

Not to me, and don't call me Shirley!

You all missed the important part of that...she isn't homophobic in the true sense of the word but she CATERS to a contingency of homophobes, for recognition and political gain. That's all I'm sayin'. The online dictionary definition of the word isn't the true meaning. It's more like the urban dictionary meaning.

You can call people whatever you like, I guess, but I don't agree that that's what homophobia is.

Interesting. I guess the moral of this particular story is that you can find studies to support all manner of views.

I'm actually all for equality. For example, I actively support "gay adoptions" as I firmly believe that being in stable household of two parents of any sexual or marital tendencies who are committed to being proper parents is going to be better for a prospective adopted child than staying unadopted in care.

I'm also all for equality in the area of who goes out to defrost and de-ice my wife's car in the morning at the moment. Equal rights appear to have been suspended in terms of traditional gender steteotypes during the current cold snap! I wonder who defrosts Harriet Harmen's car.

It appears Craig is happy to dance with her, whatever you think her views may be.


http://www.strictlycomedancinglive.c...ed-to-line-up/

She probably hasn't got a clue that he's gay. I doubt she ever looks far beyond her own narrow boundaries.

ahem...

Prejudiced (I believe) is derived from 'pre-judged' i.e. a judgement made in ignorance, i.e. before all the facts are known. As with all words there has been some 'evolution' of meaning, but nonetheless...

I refer you back to your on-line dictionary for that definition in full...

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es
1. To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.
2. To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.

... Now the voting preferences of the Rt Hon in question could arguably fufil a fair few of the above criteria (ref. bolded) - but the question remains... is she selectively and specifically adverse to just homosexuals and/or homosexual behaviour rather than being adverse to all non-marriage relationships?

She may have voted against lowering the age for homosexual consent as she wanted the age for heterosexual consent to be raised to match it.

There is nothing in these threads or reported in the press that specifically and conclusively addresses either of these questions. I still see nothing that tells me what her motivations are...

... and off thread - (wymyn in the army thing...)

Females serve front line, but only as specialist troups or medics. As far as I am aware no female has passed the commando course, P company or 'Selection'. The real courses...

BIB That's a bit of a strange statement, do you want to clarify? I don't know why you leaped to coercing youngsters to be honest... I hope you aren't suggesting anything!
Your idea that because gay people 'face a stigma' they should be denied equal rights, is really pandering to homophobes.

Everyone regardless of sexuality should be free to experiment without fear of legal prosecution at the same age. A gay teen should be allowed to try being straight, a straight teen to be gay and everything in between.

Actually I really am not sure what you are saying here... is it because some heterosexuals go through a 'phase' that homosexuals should be treated as "not old enough to know yet", if so this is in fact protecting heterosexuals from being picked on for being gay?

I see double standards here.

Also, I don't really agree that a potential pregnancy can be dismissed as 'not a stigma'.
I think a lesbian being coerced into having a heterosexual relationship because they were too young to handle the situation, even having a baby, is just as bad actually far worse, as I have seen that happen.

We are past the days where kids aren't aware they are gay or have to hide it, kids are coming out younger and younger, and this is through education and being treated more as equal. To be honest, they know their sexuality about the same time straight ones do, they just have to deal with (like you say) stigma and expectation.

Telling them it's ok and they are equal is a good thing.
Watching (well, hearing about) your straight friends have sex and not being legal yourself for another 2 years after them is effectively saying "well TRY to be straight for a bit at least..."

If I have got you wrong, please feel free to clarify, but I find your comments bemusing.

That's called 'damning with faint praise'. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
A gay couple adopting is equal to a straight one, and there are good and bad in each.
wtf "sexual or marital tendencies"
Saying "better than in care" is another retreat of the bigot trying to come over as open minded.

When someone expresses the kind of views that bob-whatever has been posting the last two days, I cannot stop myself from expressing my opinion and seeing as this is a message board to exchange opinions, I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone refers to an abortion as butchering, if someone implies that gay people are going through a phase - in short, if someone is posting ignorant comments, I'm going to reply negatively and I don't think that's wrong.

You'd have to be blind and deaf not to realise he's gay I know she's delusional and a bit barking but she's not stupid!

not sure why you have defined prejudiced there as it does seem to show that Ann fulfills all the criteria there

Are you saying I am prejudiced against Ann

In which case I would deny this as I have followed her career for a while and know her voting record , and WHY she has said she votes the way she does

As far as I can see Ann is prejudiced against homosexuals and therefore homophobic

By the way just because she may also be prejudiced agaisnt women priests ( which she is )

Or pregant women prisoners ( which she is )

Or Single mothers ( which she is )

Or woman needing abortions( which she is )

there is nothing to say that she cant also be homophobic

Just because she has a appalling track record of disapproving of and undermining the rights of various other people this does not somehow make it excusable or right that she can also be homophobic

... no my intention was not to imply you yourself are prejudiced... however I cannot help your inference...

My intention was to merely point out that there's no evidence of specifically anti-homosexual motivation for the Rt Hon's voting patterns.

It is very true to say there's is nothing to say that she is not privately homophobic (I think someone else very eloquently put that point across, but a lot of wine has happened since then and I can't be @rsed to trawl the entire thread looking to quote them - well done whoever it was!)

No-one (from what I read here anyway), has condoned or advocated her voting record.

I'm just saying there's no concrete evidence of specific 'homophobia' on her behalf. The questioned was raised by the OP. I've just given my opinion.

... My tea is ready now. I have to go...

Ah, I can fogive anyone who shoehorns a Leslie Nielsen reference, may he rest in peace.


And it's reasonable.

So I'm wondering if anyone's actually got evidence of Ann making unambiguously homophobic comments? Or, has she simply occasionally acted in a way which is consistent with homophobia?

Hmmm... that sounds like the OP to me...

and as I pointed out using your definition of prejudice she must therefore be homophobic and as I have also pointed out sadly she is capapble of many dreadful views all at once