Thursday, July 13, 2006

Strange choice of words

The Societ for the Protection of Community Standards has a real bee in its bonnet over Charles Chauvel's becoming an MP. This is a strange choice of words;

The fact that Mr Chauvel is practising homosexual man is hugely significant to the Labour Party.

Practising? Have you ever heard any other MP described as a practising heterosexual?? And if he wasn't "practising" would he be less significant to the Labour Party?

12 comments:

andrei said...

Practising? Have you ever heard any other MP described as a practising heterosexual?? And if he wasn't "practising" would he be less significant to the Labour Party?


Apart from using Homosexual in place of gay, this is how the man himself, the Labour party and the News media describe him.

Here from the Stuff story announcing Mr Chauvel's appointment to parliament

2nd Paragraph describes the leaving incumbant
"Mr Sutton, 64, is an earthy, grey-haired farmer from Timaru – one of several long-serving MPs on Prime Minister Helen Clark's "exits with dignity" list"

I don't see any mention of Mr Sutton's sexuality in this paragraph, do you?

3rd paragraph decribing the new member

"Charles Chauvel, 37, is a gay, meticulously groomed lawyer from Wellington. At 44 on Labour's list, he is first cab off the rank to enter Parliament"

His sexuality is the first thing this story tells us.

Obviously the writer of the story though it very important.

So what's your beef?

Migrant life puts high-flier with Labour

Anonymous said...

If gays in public life seek to play up their gayness which some if not many do then they or anyone else can get upset if this is noted.If they go about drawing attention to themselves then they will get comment.Lets face it gay is not the majority (yet) and its not complusory (yet) but I wint be surprsied if thats not on the Socialists "reform" agenda
gd

Lindsay said...

The word "practising". What's the point of it?

Anonymous said...

Changing the family unit, exactly what radical feminism has proposed all along. As for declaring his homosexuality; isn't that a prerequisite for being in the Labour party at the moment?

belt said...

...as opposed to a latent homosexual I suppose? It appears latent homosexuals are just tolerable, but those DOING it are not?

Paull said...

The thing that puzzles me is this paragraph:

"He has been with partner David Hollander, a former policeman, for 11 years and has a one-year-old son, William, who lives with his mother and her partner."

If he is a "practising" homosexual, how was his son conceived?

Is this also part of the let's just produce children regardless of the situation we are bringing them into?

andrei said...

I assume a latent homosexual (or Lesbian for that matter) probably does not place much emphasis on his sexuality.

Such a man or woman probably has more important things they wish to talk about and promote.

Actually this is why I feel uncomfortable with the 'rainbow coalition - these MPs stress their sexuality and it becomes their defining feature. This is not homophobia tho that is what I ususally get when I raise it.

(see Lindsys post after this for example)

I am family and child centric for obvious reasons and Politians who focus on these issues attract my attention. Children, including my 4 are the future of this country.

Alas Labour has become the province of interest groups the Gay lobby being one of the more powerful. These MPS where they have express interest in reproductive rights, the right to adopt (the latest agenda item). I have yet to hear them speak of the needs and rights of the child nor the responsibilties of the parents in theose children nuture or support.

Call me old fashioned.

Oswald Bastable said...

I would have thought that to be a Labour MP, one would have to be rather good being a 'Gay Homosexual', not just someone practicing at it!

;-)

libertyscott said...

The only people who think it is more important than the Labour Party are the people on the other end of the political spectrum who get riled up about it.

Why should anyone get comment for being gay, anymore than being vegetarian, tennis playing or Albanian?

Why is it anyone else's business whether he shags men or not, or if he has a son from shagging a woman?

Why do some people think being homosexual or heterosexual is something that you get after it has been "promoted"? Is it because they are susceptible?

Brian Smaller said...

"Why should anyone get comment for being gay, anymore than being vegetarian, tennis playing or Albanian"

Wow Liberty, you hit on three of the four types of people I hate the most. What are the odds?

Anonymous said...

They mention it for the same reason Nazis get riled up over someone being Jewish --- hate.

Anonymous said...

Great site lots of usefull infomation here.
»