Tory Candidate Suspended On Very Spurious Grounds

#1
A Scottish Tory candidate has been suspended for placing on his website what have been termed 'deeply offensive' remarks re homosexuality.

Excerpts from his website are:

On the website, Mr Lardner said he would tolerate "common sense equality and respect" for gay people but "will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it."

He also supported the law known as Section 28 which was repealed in 2003.

"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies...was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another," he wrote.

His comments, entitled "what do I believe in?" continued: "Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so - good manners count too, of course.

"The current 'law' is wrong and must be overturned in the interests of freedom as well as Christian values."


-----------------

Personally I struggle to find what exactly is 'deeply offensive' - he's merely voicing an opinion that most people would find entirely reasonable.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...nded-For-Gay-Remarks/Article/201004415620975?
 
#2
more opinion. Surely people who speak their minds and have values, whatever they are should be seen as good candidates......................
 
#3
Tories are chasing the pink vote so dont want to alienate them.

The fact that this guy is just saying what most people think is no defence against the tyranny of Stonewall and their heterosexual hating agenda it seems.

He has said nothing wrong, in fact he should be applauded for his courage in speaking out.
 
#4
thegimp said:
more opinion. Surely people who speak their minds and have values, whatever they are should be seen as good candidates......................
Abu Hamza? That Phelps bloke from the Westboro Baptist church?

Values, especially when they are religious in nature do not make someone a good candidate; I'd be very wary of voting for anyone who considers it appropriate to run a country based on their own religious beliefs. Integrity and some common sense is more important.
 
#5
Bravo_Zulu said:
thegimp said:
more opinion. Surely people who speak their minds and have values, whatever they are should be seen as good candidates......................
Abu Hamza? That Phelps bloke from the Westboro Baptist church?

Values, especially when they are religious in nature do not make someone a good candidate; I'd be very wary of voting for anyone who considers it appropriate to run a country based on their own religious beliefs. Integrity and some common sense is more important.
Clearly politically correct values do not make a good candidate either.. Integrity and common sense being the complet antithesis of them!
 
#6
InVinoVeritas said:
Tories are chasing the pink vote so dont want to alienate them.

The fact that this guy is just saying what most people think is no defence against the tyranny of Stonewall and their heterosexual hating agenda it seems.

He has said nothing wrong, in fact he should be applauded for his courage in speaking out.
Is he? I don't think that, I know lots of people who don't think that - no idea if we're the majority or not, but there are lots of us.

Actually, I don't really think about it much at all - what consenting adults do for sexual gratification isn't my business, and it sure as hell isn't the business of government or a political party. But it does seem to have a fascination for many folk.

I don't think Mr Lardner's downfall is of any great significance in the coming election - 2005 results for Ayrshire North were Lab 44%, Con and SNP both on 18%.

C_C
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#7
Well I'm not religious, so I cannot comment on the other comments, but I'll go along with this statement:

"The promotion of homosexuality by public bodies...was correctly outlawed by Mrs Thatcher's government. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another," he wrote.
 
#8
Charm_City said:
InVinoVeritas said:
Tories are chasing the pink vote so dont want to alienate them.

The fact that this guy is just saying what most people think is no defence against the tyranny of Stonewall and their heterosexual hating agenda it seems.

He has said nothing wrong, in fact he should be applauded for his courage in speaking out.
Is he? I don't think that, I know lots of people who don't think that - no idea if we're the majority or not, but there are lots of us.

Actually, I don't really think about it much at all - what consenting adults do for sexual gratification isn't my business, and it sure as hell isn't the business of government or a political party. But it does seem to have a fascination for many folk.

I don't think Mr Lardner's downfall is of any great significance in the coming election - 2005 results for Ayrshire North were Lab 44%, Con and SNP both on 18%.

C_C
I do. It shows that we have the bloody thought police in control. I don't give a stuff about anyone's sexuality* or have an opinion about what consenting adults get up to in their home. I do object to public money being spent on promoting homosexuality, there are far more important things to sort out.




* Disclaimer. I actually am interested in what fit lesbians get up to.
 
#9
Charm_City said:
InVinoVeritas said:
The fact that this guy is just saying what most people think
Is he? I don't think that, I know lots of people who don't think that
Homosexuality isn't normal. That doesn't mean to say that I hold anything against the friends of mine who happen to be gay, merely that I don't agree with what they do. I certainly don't discriminate against them for something which is their own private business.

Mr Lardner's crime here isn't intolerance, it's something far more sinister - speaking your mind.
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
For those of us who work in the Civil Service, I'm sure even the most apologetic handwringer would agree that this person is most certainly using a common handymans tool to drive a metal object into a piece of wood.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
In what way is the state promoting homosexuality?

By allowing homosexuals to have equal rights as hetrosexuals is not promoting it.
 
#12
Have to agree with Charm City - not sure with 18% of the vote he speaks for many people to be honest. He could always stand as an independant and see how many he carries with him??
 
#13
skintboymike said:
Homosexuality isn't normal.
How do you know that? Coz de bybul sey so? :)

Can you actually provide any proper evidence that homosexuality isn't "normal"? If not, then maybe you should point out that it's only your own misinformed and biased opinion.

MsG
 
#14
Bugsy said:
skintboymike said:
Homosexuality isn't normal.
How do you know that? Coz de bybul sey so? :)

Can you actually provide any proper evidence that homosexuality isn't "normal"? If not, then maybe you should point out that it's only your own misinformed and biased opinion.

MsG
It is my own opinion. It's not any more biased or misinformed than your own, though.


:roll:
 
#15
skintboymike said:
Mr Lardner's crime here isn't intolerance, it's something far more sinister - speaking your mind.
The most apposite post on this thread.

'....spurious grounds ....' ; 'politically expedient grounds' more like.

When I have doubts about this subject, I concentrate on the human anatomy. Then it becomes clear - buggery is not natural.
 
#16
lsquared said:
When I have doubts about this subject, I concentrate on the human anatomy. Then it becomes clear - buggery is not natural.
I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide any evidence (at all) of your statement, would you? Or is it because you too are just biased and misinformed with your personal opinion?

MsG
 
#17
Bugsy said:
skintboymike said:
Homosexuality isn't normal.
How do you know that? Coz de bybul sey so? :)

Can you actually provide any proper evidence that homosexuality isn't "normal"? If not, then maybe you should point out that it's only your own misinformed and biased opinion.

MsG
There won't be any "evidence" that homosexuality isn't normal, a situation that applies to almost any condition. What there is, however, is a body of opinion, with views both for and against.

This chap falls on the opposite of the divide to yourself. His comments, however, certainly aren't misinformed or biased, or even offensive, although there is a case to be made that his judgement and timing may be somewhat flawed.

On the subject of mis-information and bias you too have entered a plea of guilty - categorising (and castigating) SBM when you don't know him/her.
 
#18
His comments, entitled "what do I believe in?" continued: "Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so - good manners count too, of course.
In my own experience, most people believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'meh' and 'who gives a ****?'. This guy (along with some of the other posters here, it seems) is generalising wildly from his views; and those of his friends.
 
#19
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Bugsy said:
skintboymike said:
Homosexuality isn't normal.
How do you know that? Coz de bybul sey so? :)

Can you actually provide any proper evidence that homosexuality isn't "normal"? If not, then maybe you should point out that it's only your own misinformed and biased opinion.

MsG
There won't be any "evidence" that homosexuality isn't normal, a situation that applies to almost any condition. What there is, however, is a body of opinion, with views both for and against.

This chap falls on the opposite of the divide to yourself. His comments, however, certainly aren't misinformed or biased, or even offensive, although there is a case to be made that his judgement and timing may be somewhat flawed.

On the subject of mis-information and bias you too have entered a plea of guilty - categorising (and castigating) SBM when you don't know him/her.
Hangington aboutsby here! I've not castigated anybody, but I did categorise him, yes. If he makes a statement that: "homosexuality isn't normal" without qualifying it as his own, completely personal opinion, then he's effectively categorised himself. In that case, there's no necessity for me to "know" him, is there?

MsG
 
#20
overpromoted said:
His comments, entitled "what do I believe in?" continued: "Christians (and most of the population) believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'unfortunate' and simply 'wrong' and they should not be penalised for politely saying so - good manners count too, of course.
In my own experience, most people believe homosexuality to be somewhere between 'meh' and 'who gives a *?'. This guy (along with some of the other posters here, it seems) is generalising wildly from his views; and those of his friends.
Spot the flaw in your argument.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads