National - FFS!

[couta1]

I don't think it is. 'Straight' people don't seem to recoil from being called heterosexual or hetrosexual. 'Straight' is another term but not a euphemism. 'Gay' is definitely a euphemism. I think you will find most homosexual or lesbian people are quite open to being called 'homosexual or lesbian'. They don't find it offensive. But then along came the politically correct do-gooders who have decided their description should be changed to 'gay'. That is offensive. Like the blind who some years ago were pleading to be called 'blind' but couldn't defeat the PC lunatics who insisted they be called 'visually impaired'.

The whole PC movement has really made modern life much more unpleasant, its just another form of control.

[Bjauck]

The whole PC movement has really made modern life much more unpleasant, its just another form of control.

I guess it does depend on the specific situation, however I think PC “ unpleasantness” is preferable to previous persecution, discrimination and forced control based on, for example, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.

[moka]

What's your point, why should it matter if Act or National have any openly gay MP's or not, many who are entitled to their opinion will see that as a positive.

It matters because diversity and inclusivity matters. It matters because a group of people who identify as gay are not included or welcome in some groups or organisations. They are judged on matters that are not relevant to their suitability as MPs. If you are gay you are unlikely to get ahead be accepted into organisations with conservative values.

And you say many who are entitled to their opinion will see that as a positive that ACT and National have no openly gay MPs, and implicit in that is that you don’t want any of that sort in organisations you belong to. You can have an opinion but when it translates into excluding people it becomes discrimination.

[jonu]

It matters because diversity and inclusivity matters. ..... They are judged on matters that are not relevant to their suitability as MPs.

Which way would you have it moka? They be judged on their ability as MPs or some other irrelevant matter such as ethnicity or sexual orientation?

The woke Left's logic always crumbles upon itself. One minute they are demanding no discrimination, the next, discriminate. Apparently people of a certain ethnicity or gender all think alike according to the woke mob, hence a need to have all the colors of the rainbow.

It escapes them that this is a racist bigoted view of the world.

[couta1]

It matters because diversity and inclusivity matters. It matters because a group of people who identify as gay are not included or welcome in some groups or organisations. They are judged on matters that are not relevant to their suitability as MPs. If you are gay you are unlikely to get ahead be accepted into organisations with conservative values.

And you say many who are entitled to their opinion will see that as a positive that ACT and National have no openly gay MPs, and implicit in that is that you don’t want any of that sort in organisations you belong to. You can have an opinion but when it translates into excluding people it becomes discrimination.

Whose excluding anyone, until I saw your post i wasn't even aware that those parties had no openly homosexual/lesbian members, but as it so happens I wouldn't vote for a party with a high proportion of members in that position.

[justakiwi]

So on the one hand you say while you don’t approve of their chosen lifestyle, you consider your gay friends your equals - but at the same time you wouldn’t vote for a party with a high proportion of homosexual members. If you truly consider homosexuals your equals, why then do you deem them unworthy of your vote?

Whose excluding anyone, until I saw your post i wasn't even aware that those parties had no openly homosexual/lesbian members, but as it so happens I wouldn't vote for a party with a high proportion of members in that position.

[couta1]

So on the one hand you say while you don’t approve of their chosen lifestyle, you consider your gay friends your equals - but at the same time you wouldn’t vote for a party with a high proportion of homosexual members. If you truly consider homosexuals your equals, why then do you deem them unworthy of your vote?

Well it just so happens that the parties with the highest number of homosexual members also stand for a lot of other things i don't agree with, so why would I vote for them?

[moka]

I don't. But I think using the euphemism 'gay' is a choice, and a poor one. They are not 'gay'. They are homosexual.

They choose to use the term gay as in LGBTQIA, and not homosexual. The term “homosexual” is associated negative stereotypes including deviancy and criminal behaviour, and with lower levels of support for LGBT rights.

[justakiwi]

That's not what you said. You said you would "never vote for a party with a high proportion of members in that position."

Now you are making ridiculous assumptions about gay people and what they stand for. Just be honest and admit you are a homophobe. You're not fooling anyone.

Well it just so happens that the parties with the highest number of homosexual members also stand for a lot of other things i don't agree with, so why would I vote for them?

[Bjauck]

Which way would you have it moka? They be judged on their ability as MPs or some other irrelevant matter such as ethnicity or sexual orientation?

The woke Left's logic always crumbles upon itself. One minute they are demanding no discrimination, the next, discriminate. Apparently people of a certain ethnicity or gender all think alike according to the woke mob, hence a need to have all the colors of the rainbow.

It escapes them that this is a racist bigoted view of the world.

The negative discrimination/affirmative action conundrum? When does affirmative action to overcome the results of generations of discrimination itself become destructive discrimination.