Writing in the Western Mail, Lowri Turner outs herself as a fool:
… I don’t think gay men make good party leaders or Prime Ministers. This has nothing to do with what they do in bed but everything to do with their lives in general.
Before I am accused of prejudice, I should say that not only are some of my best friends gay, but probably most of them are. I work in the media, for goodness sake. It is precisely because I know such a lot of gay men that I can say that I don’t think many of them are capable of representing the interests of the vast majority of people.
Their lifestyles are too divorced from the norm. They are not better or worse, but they are different.
Gay men face challenges of their own, but they do not face those associated with having children which is the way most of us live. I have gay friends whose biggest headache is whether to have a black sofa or a cream one. If they have a child it is a dog.
Er… leaving aside the obvious emperical deficiencies of some of her factual claims, that logic disqualifies childless heterosexuals for public office, too. Perhaps nobody should run the country because everyone has a few unique problems determined by their job, age, class, religion or sexual orientation that makes their lifestyles “too divorced from the norm”.
For example, how do public school educated barristers relate to “the interests of the vast majority of people”?
Update: See also the response from Welsh Assembly member Peter Black: “According to Lowri Turner, the only person who should be PM is a white middle class man or women with 2.4 kids and a mortgage.”