Author
|
Topic: UK: Tory Chief Recants Anti-gay Attitudes, But...
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 13 February 2006 08:53 AM
BBC: quote: The Thatcher government's failure to openly accept gay people was wrong, Conservative chairman Francis Maude, has told a gay news website. Mr Maude, whose brother Charles died from the HIV virus in 1993, said the attitude prompted the "promiscuous" activity among homosexuals at the time. He told the PinkNews.co.uk website he now regretted voting to ban councils from promoting homosexuality. The Section 28 legislation, made law in the late 1980s, was repealed in 2003. Mr Maude, MP for Horsham, said his decision was "in hindsight a mistake, I voted for it, I was a minister". He added: "We've been seen for a long time as a party which hasn't been very open to gay people. That's wrong." Asked if it was morally wrong, he answered: "Yes, totally." ... [H]e told the website the Thatcher government's attitude at the time had not helped the gay scene. "The gay scene in London in the 1980s was quite aggressively promiscuous and I think if society generally and the government I served in had been more willing to recognise gay people then there would have been less of that problem."
Lovely that he knows he was wrong, but where is this guy getting the idea that government policy is what dictates the extent to which (and the frequency with which) gay people sleep with one another?
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 13 February 2006 11:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by RealityBites: Section 28 banned any safer sex information in schools or other government sponsored institutions. Perhaps that's what he's trying to say?Or he may actually think that people had lots of unsafe sex to make up for the hurt of being unloved by Margaret Thatcher.
Still, Francis Maude has done what Ed Schreyer could not, hasn't he? (although I can't for the life of me work out what the 'promiscuous' bit is about)
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 14 February 2006 12:11 AM
He has a point. Driving an activity underground is the surest way to make it unsafe (or certainly less safe). Consider drugs as the perfect analogy. Alcohol is legally regulated and is generally considered a socially acceptable drink. Society can largely absorb the impact alcoholism has, in the aggregate, although individuals and families clearly may experience heartbreak over it.However, were alcohol to be driven underground I think we would see a dramatic rise in deaths due to unsafe alcohol production, unscrupulous alcohol dealers, and alcoholics would find themselves not just unemployed, but facing jail sentences as well, which in our prison system does little to contribute to treatment of the problem. So, translate to unsafe homosexual activity. If society had been mature enough to recognize the problem and face it head on, the AIDS crisis could well have been nipped in the bud by the late 1980s. Even so, it took until the mid-1990s for gay communities to get a handle on the problem.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 14 February 2006 12:17 AM
I think also promiscuous has a slightly different connotation over there. More like "wild life" as opposed to frequent sex. quote: Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Still, Francis Maude has done what Ed Schreyer could not, hasn't he?
Well its all stiff upper lip until someone loses a brother. [ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|