This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/david-jones-contradictory-argument-gay-parenting

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Welsh minister baffles himself on gay parenting Welsh minister baffles himself on gay parenting
(7 months later)
Is Welsh secretary, David Jones, attempting to lead some kind of double political life from within the Conservative party? After a TV interview and a clarifying statement, he still doesn't seem quite sure what he's talking about.Is Welsh secretary, David Jones, attempting to lead some kind of double political life from within the Conservative party? After a TV interview and a clarifying statement, he still doesn't seem quite sure what he's talking about.
Jones says that his reason for voting against gay marriage was that "clearly" gay couples "cannot provide a warm and safe environment" in which to raise children. His clarification: "Since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite-sex partners." However, Jones says that he is not against civil partnerships, or gay couples adopting, and he has "people in my life who are important to me who are gay".Jones says that his reason for voting against gay marriage was that "clearly" gay couples "cannot provide a warm and safe environment" in which to raise children. His clarification: "Since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite-sex partners." However, Jones says that he is not against civil partnerships, or gay couples adopting, and he has "people in my life who are important to me who are gay".
What kind of skewed mindset thinks gay couples should have civil partnerships and adoption rights, then balks at marriage? It's like a horse that's just won the "gay issues" Grand National, but then trips over a bucket.What kind of skewed mindset thinks gay couples should have civil partnerships and adoption rights, then balks at marriage? It's like a horse that's just won the "gay issues" Grand National, but then trips over a bucket.
There's no point rising to the "biological" bait. Some gay parents have biological children, while some heterosexual couples can't. Should the former be termed "honorary straights" and the latter reclassified as "gay" and barred from marriage? Parenting is not a slave to biology anyway. Many heterosexual families (adoptive, step, etc) aren't all biologically linked to each other – do we quote the Bible at them? As for the lack of "a warm and safe environment", does Jones think that gay people take their children clubbing or send them out, Fagin-style, to score amyl nitrate? Jones also ignores the countless cases of child abuse, neglect and murder in so-called righteous hetero-households.There's no point rising to the "biological" bait. Some gay parents have biological children, while some heterosexual couples can't. Should the former be termed "honorary straights" and the latter reclassified as "gay" and barred from marriage? Parenting is not a slave to biology anyway. Many heterosexual families (adoptive, step, etc) aren't all biologically linked to each other – do we quote the Bible at them? As for the lack of "a warm and safe environment", does Jones think that gay people take their children clubbing or send them out, Fagin-style, to score amyl nitrate? Jones also ignores the countless cases of child abuse, neglect and murder in so-called righteous hetero-households.
Obviously this isn't normal for heterosexuals either and there are far fewer gay families for comparison. However, with accidental pregnancy taken out of the equation, gay parents, by definition, must be at least as committed as their straight counterparts. If I were a baby with a choice, just looking at the stats, I'd take my chances with a gay couple over a straight couple any day. Old and ugly as I am, Elton John and David Furnish can adopt me right now. (We might disagree over their spat with Madonna, but I promise to do my homework and clean my teeth.) More seriously, gay parents have more than proved themselves to straight society, not that they should ever have had to, so why the continuing prejudice?Obviously this isn't normal for heterosexuals either and there are far fewer gay families for comparison. However, with accidental pregnancy taken out of the equation, gay parents, by definition, must be at least as committed as their straight counterparts. If I were a baby with a choice, just looking at the stats, I'd take my chances with a gay couple over a straight couple any day. Old and ugly as I am, Elton John and David Furnish can adopt me right now. (We might disagree over their spat with Madonna, but I promise to do my homework and clean my teeth.) More seriously, gay parents have more than proved themselves to straight society, not that they should ever have had to, so why the continuing prejudice?
The short, brutal answer is because it's still there, it hasn't gone away and it isn't likely to go away in the near future. It might not be explicitly stated so much these days, it might be disguised as "concern" (bigotry evolves like everything else). However, there are still people out there who firmly believe that gay families are unnatural and that gay people and children should not mix. These are the sort of people who consider gay parents and, in particular, gay male parents, to be everything from a joke to an abomination, and at the most extreme, a clever cover for paedophilia.The short, brutal answer is because it's still there, it hasn't gone away and it isn't likely to go away in the near future. It might not be explicitly stated so much these days, it might be disguised as "concern" (bigotry evolves like everything else). However, there are still people out there who firmly believe that gay families are unnatural and that gay people and children should not mix. These are the sort of people who consider gay parents and, in particular, gay male parents, to be everything from a joke to an abomination, and at the most extreme, a clever cover for paedophilia.
These ugly prejudices make no sense, there is no proof or justification, but still they fester, only dragged into the light when, say, a Welsh secretary makes garbled contradictory announcements about gay marriage. I'm still unsure where David Jones stands. A wildly generous appraisal may be that he's not prejudiced and that this was a botched attempt to cover all bases. That he was trying to appeal to Tory modernisers with a gay-friendly stance, while simultaneously opposing gay marriage, to keep the blue-rinse brigade on-side. You could almost feel sorry for him – is this what its like being in the Conservative party now?These ugly prejudices make no sense, there is no proof or justification, but still they fester, only dragged into the light when, say, a Welsh secretary makes garbled contradictory announcements about gay marriage. I'm still unsure where David Jones stands. A wildly generous appraisal may be that he's not prejudiced and that this was a botched attempt to cover all bases. That he was trying to appeal to Tory modernisers with a gay-friendly stance, while simultaneously opposing gay marriage, to keep the blue-rinse brigade on-side. You could almost feel sorry for him – is this what its like being in the Conservative party now?
It's probably a better idea to reserve compassion for gay parents, who live in a society that, despite legislation and surface change, is not going to stop undermining and insulting them any time soon.It's probably a better idea to reserve compassion for gay parents, who live in a society that, despite legislation and surface change, is not going to stop undermining and insulting them any time soon.
Galliano: courting controversy or just really dim?Galliano: courting controversy or just really dim?
Some of us remember fashion designer John Galliano being fired from Dior, after drunkenly making antisemitic remarks in a bar, such as: "I love Hitler" and: "People like you would be dead, your mothers, your forefathers, would all be fucking gassed." Nice.Some of us remember fashion designer John Galliano being fired from Dior, after drunkenly making antisemitic remarks in a bar, such as: "I love Hitler" and: "People like you would be dead, your mothers, your forefathers, would all be fucking gassed." Nice.
After making a comeback, working for Oscar de la Renta, Galliano was photographed seemingly dressed as a Hasidic Jew, although he strenuously denies any such thing. Quite. Here is a photograph of the get-up to see how badly Galliano has been wronged.After making a comeback, working for Oscar de la Renta, Galliano was photographed seemingly dressed as a Hasidic Jew, although he strenuously denies any such thing. Quite. Here is a photograph of the get-up to see how badly Galliano has been wronged.
In fairness, this is high fashion and Galliano has long dressed like a stoned pirate, except when he's dressed like a pigtailed sailor. However, wouldn't someone in his position have looked in the mirror, seen the sidelocks, wide hat and floppy jacket and thought: "Hmm, this looks a bit… crikey, I'd better change into a onesie!"?In fairness, this is high fashion and Galliano has long dressed like a stoned pirate, except when he's dressed like a pigtailed sailor. However, wouldn't someone in his position have looked in the mirror, seen the sidelocks, wide hat and floppy jacket and thought: "Hmm, this looks a bit… crikey, I'd better change into a onesie!"?
We're left with limited options. Galliano has either decided controversy is his friend or he really is so stupid he didn't realise that the outfit was channelling "Hasidic/offensive", which last time I looked wasn't 2013's "hot look". So Galliano is either a ghastly self-publicist, thick, or both. Zoolander would be proud.We're left with limited options. Galliano has either decided controversy is his friend or he really is so stupid he didn't realise that the outfit was channelling "Hasidic/offensive", which last time I looked wasn't 2013's "hot look". So Galliano is either a ghastly self-publicist, thick, or both. Zoolander would be proud.
Jeremy Irons, keep your paws to yourselfJeremy Irons, keep your paws to yourself
Ah, Jeremy Irons, whose "open marriage" to the actress Sinead Cusack sounds like the sort of set-up that could make a woman turn Amish. He's claiming that his words on female bottom-touching were misquoted by the Radio Times (who mysteriously have a tape proving otherwise). Irons says that women who don't like being touched by him could always tell him to "fuck off". How very gracious of him – to allow women to object after the event. Except of course it isn't.Ah, Jeremy Irons, whose "open marriage" to the actress Sinead Cusack sounds like the sort of set-up that could make a woman turn Amish. He's claiming that his words on female bottom-touching were misquoted by the Radio Times (who mysteriously have a tape proving otherwise). Irons says that women who don't like being touched by him could always tell him to "fuck off". How very gracious of him – to allow women to object after the event. Except of course it isn't.
A little while ago, there was (in my opinion) some confusion over Joanna Lumley's remarks about young women keeping themselves safe on a night out. This time, it isn't confusing.A little while ago, there was (in my opinion) some confusion over Joanna Lumley's remarks about young women keeping themselves safe on a night out. This time, it isn't confusing.
Irons exhibits the attitude that women should be held responsible for his behaviour. Unlike random female derrieres, he seems unable to grasp that the onus is not on women to object forcefully, but on him not to grope them in the first place. As Irons seems interested in younger women, it's also likely that some of them wouldn't have the confidence to tell this famous, powerful, older male to stop pawing them. Which was demonstrated by Thandie Newton, bravely speaking out on behalf of the One Billion Rising movement (relating to the numbers of women who've been beaten, abused or raped globally), concerning casting experiences that confused and humiliated her as a young actress.Irons exhibits the attitude that women should be held responsible for his behaviour. Unlike random female derrieres, he seems unable to grasp that the onus is not on women to object forcefully, but on him not to grope them in the first place. As Irons seems interested in younger women, it's also likely that some of them wouldn't have the confidence to tell this famous, powerful, older male to stop pawing them. Which was demonstrated by Thandie Newton, bravely speaking out on behalf of the One Billion Rising movement (relating to the numbers of women who've been beaten, abused or raped globally), concerning casting experiences that confused and humiliated her as a young actress.
Just like Ms Newton, many young women are too intimidated and inexperienced to stop what is happening. Is this their fault? Should they have to act as "caretakers" for other people's actions? I don't think so. So on behalf of all females who might one day find themselves on the receiving end of "friendly" touching, may I instruct the deluded, self-justifying Jeremy Irons to "fuck off!" in advance?Just like Ms Newton, many young women are too intimidated and inexperienced to stop what is happening. Is this their fault? Should they have to act as "caretakers" for other people's actions? I don't think so. So on behalf of all females who might one day find themselves on the receiving end of "friendly" touching, may I instruct the deluded, self-justifying Jeremy Irons to "fuck off!" in advance?
• Comments will be switched on later this morning• Comments will be switched on later this morning
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.