I ask because of this:
I mean, in broad terms, if you have an attribute such as sexuality, and your individual sexuality is one shared only by a minority, you are abnormal in that respect.
Not, you should note, subnormal.
I understand that abnormal still has perjorative connotations, but really – how seriously should we take such nuances when English is such a rich and complex language, spoken in variations by people from all over the world?
So, as a matter of fact, homosexuality is not the normal sexual orientation of people.
I don’t care about homosexuality – I wouldn’t recommend it (not having tried it), but I wouldn’t condemn it either. None of my business what sort of holes you prefer, bluntly speaking.
I can see why Mr Lardner came unstuck:
The former Territorial Army soldier wrote of his support for the controversial "clause 28", which was introduced by the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and banned public bodies from promoting homosexuality.
Last year, David Cameron apologised for Tory efforts to stop the measure being repealed by Labour and his party have since indicated they would consider allowing same-sex marriages, if elected.
But Mr Lardner wrote: "As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is ‘normal’ behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage.
"I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it.
"Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."
… but all he’s actually saying is that the individual should be free to make judgements of conscience. When it comes to the freedom of schools, it comes down to the same thing as the bigoted B&Bers: Let the market decide.
If a school has a policy of not teaching about homosexuality, so long as you know it before you enrol your kids, there’s no harm done. You’ve exercised a choice. I doubt a school would stand or fall on this policy, but you’re able to send your kids to an ‘enlightened’ school. Mary & Donald McCatholic also get to send their kids to a school that satisfies their own views, which you may or may not agree with.
Everyone gets a choice that suits them. One size doesn’t fit all.
The clause 28 question is an interesting one though, because I honestly don’t think it’d make any difference if same were implemented tomorrow.
I mean, surely homophobia is now one of the most abnormal views in British society, the preserve of the elderly, the fundamentalists and the sexually insecure?
So, what it all boils down to is, Mr Lardner has been pole-axed for voicing a truism and defending individual freedom of conscience.
Which is rather worse than having a few eccentric ideas about gays, if you ask me.
AJ
Al Jahom's Final Word 
Indeed. But we are in the grip of a progressive orthodoxy that mandates that tolerance is not enough – one must celebrate, or be cast as beyond the pale.
Ah you have voiced rather better what I thought when I saw a fabian banging on about this. Thanks :)
Splendid post.
Yes, a very good post. Yet many people will still refuse to learn the lesson from this regarding Dave’s Tory party’s attitude towards conservatism and freedom of speech. Oh well…
I can see what your saying, and yes of course the man has a right to an opinion but publicly declaring that homosexuality is not normal and that it shouldn’t be “promoted” to children is really not something someone should do when they could potentially be in a position of power. I don’t think Mr Lardner meant that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm (in the sense that it is not the most common sexual orientation) – I think he meant that it is wrong and that he thinks teaching about it in school is likley to make more people gay. But teaching children about homosexuality is not about encouraging them to be gay, it’s about teaching them to understand what it is and not to fear it. It’s about teaching them that while it’s less common, it’s not wrong – that it’s ok to love and have sex with someone of the same gender, as long as you are two consenting adults. I’d also be worried about any children that do turn out to be gay, but whoose parents have chosen to send them to a school where the best they can expect is a kind of polite homophobia – in the form of yes, we will tolerate you but really we think you are subnormal. And at worst, those are the sort of schools that may actually end up promoting the sort of homophobia that is currently “the preserve of the elderly, the fundamentalists and the sexually insecure”…
All good points, but I just don’t think the cause justifies intervention and the imposition of bad law and intolerance.
Do you think there’ll be a resurgence of homophobia if such freedom of choice is allowed to flourish? And if so, is that an admission that peoples’ freedom of thought, faith and expression must be stifled in order to conform to a belief system no more or less valid than any other?
Also, why not let the voters decide?
I don’t know, but I’m prepared to speculate that the seat he’s contesting has a lot of old-school Christian constituents.
I’ll admit that it’s a tricky issue – I don’t know if there would be a resurgence in homophobia but I can’t help but feel it wouldn’t help matters. How, for instance, could you reduce homophobic bullying in schools if at the same time you’re teaching children that it’s wrong? But I do think it’s a shame that it seems to boil down to having to choose between two belief systems. I don’t think being religious and being able to accept homosexuality should be mutually exclusive but obviously some ppl do. If Mr.Lardner had been allowed to stand for election, to be honest I’d just hope that the ppl of North Ayrshire and Arran wouldn’t have shown him much support – and I might be right given the fact that he was previously suspended from the Conservative party for making racist comments and it appears the current Labour MP is defending a majority of over 11,000. It’s also seems pretty obvious from the Tory reaction that this is really the sort of image they’d like to move away from, and I really don’t think he’s done the party any favours.
I guess we all want to be live in a society that supports our own views and at the very least we want to live in society that allows us to speak out about these views. Perhaps the Tory plan would help issues, but I think it would be better if schools actually exposed children to a variety of beliefs – including those of multiple faiths – and then they could make up their own minds, instead of viewing one way of thinking as the right way. I haven’t decided who I am voting for in the election yet but you’ve now got me thinking I need to look up the main parties policies on education – and I don’t even have children!
and when I say “when at the same time you are teaching them that it’s wrong” in the first paragraph, I of course mean teaching them that homosexuality is wrong, as opposed to teaching them that homophobic bullying is wrong…
“How, for instance, could you reduce homophobic bullying in schools if at the same time you’re teaching children that it’s wrong? “
It would be quite nice if they managed to tackle the seemingly-tricky subject of bullying full stop, wouldn’t it?
Never mind introducing a two-tier system where some bullying is more unacceptable than the other sort…
I knew someone was going to say something like that! And it is a valid point. Of course any sort of bullying is unacceptable – I wasn’t suggesting that homophobic bullying is somehow worse than any other form. But it is still a problem with a recent survey carried out by Stonewall finding that “Nine in ten secondary school teachers and more than two in five primary school teachers (44 per cent) say children and young people, regardless of their sexual orientation, currently experience homophobic bullying, name calling or harassment in their schools”. Whether this means teachers require special training or not I don’t know – but I’m pretty sure that it would be harder to reduce this specific form of bullying in a school where the only view being put forward about homosexuality is that it is wrong…
Well, I’ve got a problem with a single-issue pressure group like Stonewall constantly issuing reports and surveys which serve mainly to prove that Stonewall still needs to exist and be given lots of government money and access…
In your example of a school you need to remember that most state school parents had very little or no choice in which school to send their kid to, unless of course their sky faerie can get them into a special one. I had no choice about my sons school and I was none too happy about it. (As it turned out it is actually a pretty good school and has defied my prejudices.)
If it promoted homophobia or homophillia I would still have had no choice but to send my son there.
Indeed – which requires the Tories free schools plan to fix it :o)
Pingback: Bans, discrimination and jerky knees « Al Jahom's Final Word
Placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption is as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offer themselves as parents…
THAT is why homosexuality shouldn’t be ‘celebrated’. How many more innocent victim do you think should suffer, before you leftist idiots admit you’re wrong?