Its an article written in 2006 by Lowri Turner ,who is a UK TV presenter.
| Quote: |
Gay men face challenges of their own, but they do not face those associated with having children which is the way most of us live. I have gay friends whose biggest headache is whether to have a black sofa or a cream one. If they have a child it is a dog.
My gay friends have not sat in accident and emergency with a small child. They have not had to make the decision over whether to give them MMR. They have not struggled to get their child statemented or gone through the schools' appeals process.
Without these experiences at the sharp end of our public services, they do not know how they function. This makes them completely out of their depth in administering them. In the same way that career politicians, those who have never had a real job but climbed the greasy pole by way of think-tanks and speech writing, are not equipped to make laws for the rest of us, so I think gay men are ill-suited to representing the interests of the population in general. However much I love my gay friends, I don't want them running the country. |
Full Article - (So you can see her comments in context)
Is she right,should gay men be allowed in positions of power? Can't be trusted with power because they don't have the experience of raising children?
Sounds like bigotry on the part of breeders to me. As if having children was the only way one could learn responsibility.
Just another way of saying "I'm better than you because I have raised kids."
What about people who simply choose not to have kids? Or zoophiles like me? I guess they can't be trusted either.
There are plenty of gay people who DO have children, either adopted, from artificial insemination or surrogate mothers, or from attempts at conventional marriage.
There are plenty of straight people who do not have children, either from choice, inability, or lack of opportunity.
There are lots of people who DO have children who shouldn't have children - neglecters, abusers, welfare moms who pop out kids to get bigger checks - not people I'd want in charge of the country.
Therefore, this guy's argument is very flawed.
Well my first question is why is the question about men only?
Gay people come in both genders obviously. This is a loaded question that
is shaded by subjective views on homosexuality. There will never be a consensus
on this matter I dont believe.
The only thing I find at all surprising here is the fact that Lowri Taylor is actually being taken seriously.
Why? She is an ex-journalist who now mostly dabbles in daytime entertainment shows and the like. Her views are not particularly rare - you will find similar views in many pubs and bars throughout the country. Why anyone should think them worthy of comment is beyond me. Taking Taylor's comments on sexuality and power seriously is a bit like seeking the advice of a refuse collector on how to write programs in object oriented C. Sure, there are probably some bin-men out there who are pretty expert programmers, but you wouldn't normally associate the job with those particular skills, just as you wouldn't normally assume that Taylor et al have anything interesting or worthwhile to say about subjects like this.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion - even the really really stupid ones.
Ok, what about straight people who never have children, and gay people who do have children?
At one stage the question was asked about women, whether they should be in positions of power? Sort of a crazy question and ditto gay people. I would say that gay people have probably suffered more than most people against society's bias, so if they got to where they are in a powerful position, then they would have to be more exceptional than everyone around them. Women are the same. They pretty much have to battle much more than their male equivalents to get to positions of power, so women who turn out in powerful positions may have higher qualifications than their male equivalents as they had to have persevered that much harder agains lots of bias and taboos.
| deanhills wrote: |
| They pretty much have to battle much more than their male equivalents to get to positions of power, so women who turn out in powerful positions may have higher qualifications than their male equivalents as they had to have persevered that much harder agains lots of bias and taboos. |
I think they're also a little more prone to thinking that raising children makes you superior to others...
(And may I stress prone. By no means do I accuse all women of thinking that way.)
Oh, and I just noticed something interesting, though unrelated.
This is topic #111111 for Frihost. | ocalhoun wrote: |
I think they're also a little more prone to thinking that raising children makes you superior to others...
(And may I stress prone. By no means do I accuse all women of thinking that way.) |
Right, but Palin might have, she cashed in in a major way, so you may have a good point.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Oh, and I just noticed something interesting, though unrelated.
This is topic #111111 for Frihost. |
Where did you look this up? Or am I being a little dim in not getting what the number is about? 
| Quote: |
| http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111111.html |
| catscratches wrote: |
| Quote: | | http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111111.html |
|
Thanks, that is pretty amazing. This is a bit off-topic, but where would one automatically check up on forum numberings? Is there a counter somewhere?
Back to the topic, I don't think qualifications and experience for positions of power need to be gender based. You may find a unique person for the job regardless of their sexual preferences or which gender they belong to. Depends on how they use this, which in its own would be something of what their character is about, rather than what gender they are and whether they are gay or not. Some women who get to powerful positions did not even think about their gender or limitations to their gender, while they were climbing the proverbial corporate ladder. They were just at the right place at the right time, and completely focussed on where they were going. Others may have struggled a bit more, or as Ocalhoun pointed out, may have used their ability to have children, to their benefit. | deanhills wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | Quote: | | http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111111.html |
|
Thanks, that is pretty amazing. This is a bit off-topic, but where would one automatically check up on forum numberings? Is there a counter somewhere?
|
No counter, it only shows up in the URL. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | | Quote: | | http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-111111.html |
|
Thanks, that is pretty amazing. This is a bit off-topic, but where would one automatically check up on forum numberings? Is there a counter somewhere?
|
No counter, it only shows up in the URL. |
OK, I finally got it, it was staring me in the face all the time!
