British MP Nick Herbert on Gays and Conservative Politics

[lightandbeautiful]

Homosexual activists understand the power of words.

Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".

The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationsh­ip being discussed.

The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.

[trevortrevortsr2]

less words more action - call civil unions civil marriage

[brunotupi83br]

Brazilian Supreme Court has recently recognised same-sex unions as family. Yet, it isn't a complete victory. Our congress is still full anti-gay members. That's why brazilians politicians would have a lot to learn if they watched this video.

[Brightstar27]

I seriously disagree with tihs speech.

[alasycia]

Nick, nice try but you belong to a party that would like to have you jailed in Oscar Wildes cell. Sorry hon, but that's the way it is. Think you are flogging dead horse. Homosexuality is not an option but homophobia is. Your party has made a choice (irrespective of what David Cameron says) and it is not gay equality. Wake up sweetie.

[Martinus777]

I suspect I would have a lot in common with conservatives if they were not that bigoted.

[marktopp]

He is good, he is VERY good.

Ironically, if what he so eloquently states were true he would be far more high profile than he is - is it not being Gay that is holding him back within his own party.

[Woodpoof]

the fact that you use such terms as 'Gays are motivated by the same issues as every other voter' and also the argument that the Conservatives have changed and the 'My presence here is proof of that' not to mention the phrase 'Pink water'. If sexuality isn't the issue then why are you using it as the basis of your argument? Let's not forget the actual politics and concentrate less on the voters, as a gay man i find this insulting.

[DavidUK84]

The UK conservative party has abandoned pretty much everything else that it used to believe in. So it's not a suprise that it is also abandoning family values and embracing the politically correct line that no form of relationship is any better for children or society than any other.

What is even worse is they are caving into the gay lobby's demands for ever more power and control over the actions, speech and thoughts of every individual.

[h5002]

brainwashed sheep. turn off the tv and stop listening to them. here is how the scam works: talk about it over and over then claim that you're 'scared' of it, i.e. by calling it a phobia. then, when fear takes over you become what you fear. and yes, it can be willed away. you are what you believe you are, period. if you believe its a choice, then it is. if you believe its not, then its not.

[Hierophant2]

U.K. is so much more progressive than the U.S.A. probably because the U.K. is much less religious.

[kieranemk]

I agree completely.....I am gay and I would absolutely 100% vote conservative in Australia because their political values suit me however their social values hold me back. Unfortunately for Australia...even our political left is more prejudiced than even the tories which appear to be making amazing strides. Congratulations Nick Herbert and David Cameron, continue to be conservative pioneers for change and the betterment of society :)

[JackBlair2]

You seem to keep your brains up your ass. Liberals are dumb, gay Liberals are the dumbest of the dumb. Please stop speaking.

[JackBlair2]

hahahah gays don't have a need for ego stroking and attention? Funniest thing I've heard in a year.

[Wormtail81]

Marriage has nothing to do with government, in my opinion. A legal scholar (whom I cannot recall) argued that we should remove all references to marriage from law. That makes sense to me.

[UnderseaCaveman]

Why is it that a "BRITISH ACCENT" just gives this "Argument" so much more "No shit-- no nonsense" SOUND....

Nobody Knows, Nobody Knows!!!

[enotdetcelfer]

Lol, I closed my eyes and pictured Stewie at the podium when he first said "homo-seksyewul" XP

[032125]

What concerns me (and I may be misreading this) is that it sounds as though he's pushing quite a lot of gay specific protective legislation, which inherently creates a special status group.

Humans should be free from harassment and violence. Whether someone punches you because you are gay, or for no reason at all, the crime must be the same.

No good comes from such legislative reinforcement of illusory societal divisions. Men are men; anything more is a divisive lie.

[RedRover87]

I agree we shouldn't make special status groups I feel like all he was "pushing for" was that Gays would be allowed to be married by any church that excepts them just like any straight couple. then "sadly" file it with the state (even the state has no business regulating or backing any religious union)

I didn't relate it to any "protection legislation" I saw only that they be afforded the same rights as any straight couple by knocking down road blocks not building them special walls.

[032125]

Actually I think he explicitly stated a need to respect churches that have moral objections to gay marriage; which is a key point and I agree with him on that.

[RedRover87]

Agreed he does. I would never support (nor do I believe he advocated) the Gov't forcing by injunction a catholic priest to marry two gay people, but I meant to say that a sect of a religion that accepts gays should be allowed and given the same clout as "mainstream" religions under the first amendment and the right to free practice. A pope must actually prove his parents were married by a catholic priest in order to serve. its individual and i don't see allowing them to "marry" as anti-religion.

[Skapo]

Well put.

[UnderseaCaveman]

While I generally like to think as RON PAUL subscribes "No group-ism".... it is the Law of the Majority (Democrazy), that makes "gays" into a special group by treating them "special".... therefore, logically (even mathematically), they might need "special rights", until the "Laws of the Majority" (democrzy) does not treat them as a SPECIAL (group)!

I understand your point, as pointed out from "outset" (as in Paul-thoughts).

[032125]

Partitioning any group into a specially recognized, protected minority creates perverse incentives for people to identify with that group, creates hostility in those outside the group, and does nothing to break down cultural barriers.

Once that partitioning legislation is created, it never goes away, and protection is never distributed equally, no matter how well intended the lawmakers.

There are only two morally sound divisions of humanity; by one, or by 6,692,030,277.

[UnderseaCaveman]

Don't we have this partitioning legislation in effect NOW??? Will it ever go away???

It's a funny argument!

[032125]

@UnderseaCaveman

We do, I doubt it, I guess so. Weirdo.

[TheProgressistViewer]

@032125 well said

[kieranemk]

Good argument......Im not sure your use of the word 'perverse' corresponds with the tone of your argument?

[032125]

Perverse in the economic sense, not in the sexual sense. In other words, something that a rational person would not do if there were not government interference, either by incentive or prohibition.

The classic example is the "welfare mom" who is inadvertently encouraged by the government to make a living by squeezing out babies sothat she can collect WIC money. That's a perverse incentive.

[RedRover87]

This is great as an atheist conservative/libertarian I hope this message resonates with the faith based right. I'm so sick of people thinking gays should be any different ever. bigotry is bigotry is bigotry... against gay marriage is just as bad as being pro affirmative action. its making assumptions based on circumstances of birth. Gays are just as likely to be against higher taxes and loss of freedom as anyone else. So why shouldn't we embrace them?

[032125]

From a truly libertarian standpoint, I don't think that any government has any business recognizing, licensing, rewarding, or banning any type of marriage whatsoever.

If we recognize that marriage is a cultural and religious state of coexistence apart from any legal and contractual obligations, then it becomes easier to give gays the legal rights they seek without invading on the beliefs of the religious.

In other words, if the right to contract were universal, this might be a non-issue.

[harryogre]

@032125

Well said!

[UnderseaCaveman]

True, and churches (like "Unitarian") exist were "marriage ceremonies" would be conducted for gay couples (it would wrong for gov to force the Catholics for instance)...

GOV is in the biz of "licensing" for own "taxing purposes" and because they want to "encourage" FAMILY UNITS (probably "they" decided, that makes for a stronger industrial socieiy)....(regarding the Libertarian View)

[DixonJournals]

@032125 i very much agree!!!

thats exactly what I am thinking