Civil Partnership Bill passed by the Dail

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

So you're for outright discrimination against people based on anything, then?


I think that statement alone is enough to show why people should pay no heed to any of your inane wittering. Now be a good boy and jog on, nobody here agrees with you, or is ever going to agree with you; and you have no place on here wibbling.

Iwasfrozen

iguana wrote: »

Great point. If you have a conscience clause for one, you must have it for all. In that case you could expect to have a hotel chain which is run by a Jewish person declaring that they will host no more weddings for anyone but other Jews as they can not in good conscience play host to gentile celebrations.

That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.

IrishTonyO wrote:

Then don't say it is against religious texts

It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

If your morals or religious beliefs prevent you doing your job that is their choice, either suck it up or get a different job.

Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Saying you will not do your job (i.e. as a registrar) just because the people involved are homosexual is discrimination no matter what way you look at it.

No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Religious freedom means you are free to believe and practice your religion. I do no see how you think other sections of society having rights affects your religious freedom. Also as said previously there is nothing in religious texts about civil partnerships anyway.

Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I agree. Which is why it is so important that a conscience clause is included in the Civil Partnership bill.

You realise that such a clause isn't going to be included, don't you?

You're speaking as if it might still surface. It won't. The bill has passed the Dáil, it will pass the Seanad unhindered also. There is no conscience clause and never wil be - because thankfully even FF don't bow to pressure from bigots.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.

So we should allow people to follow their religious texts to the letter then? Even the bits which are illegal in this state? Such as murdering infidels, adulterers, etc?

The law of the land outweighs ANY religious texts in ALL cases.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.

Hatred isn't a "good innocrent religious" belief.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.


It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.


Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.


No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.


Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.

Most of those quotes are mine not iguanas

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

So you're for outright discrimination against people based on anything, then?

Basically I believe that if you are a self-employed photographer or hotel owner then it is your right to deny services to however you want. And the state should not be able to take away those rights as they see fit.

MYOB wrote: »

I think that statement alone is enough to show why people should pay no heed to any of your inane wittering. Now be a good boy and jog on, nobody here agrees with you, or is ever going to agree with you; and you have no place on here wibbling.

The only bigoted post I see here is yours. I have given my reasons why I believe that a conscience clause is important for this bill. Your first reply to me here is rude and condescending. Though I do not know what I have ever done to you. Perhaps it is an inferiority complex on your behalf.

That is my first reply to you on this thread and if your attitude continues it will be my last. I have no intention of getting into a flame-fest with you.

Iwasfrozen

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Most of those quotes are mine not iguanas

Oops, sorry. My bad.

iguana

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.

Except it's not. If you decide to trade in the public domain you have to be open to all of the public. Everyone has a choice, trade publicly or don't. It's very straight forward and it allows total personal religious freedom.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.

Thankfully in all western democracies that is illegal

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.

Again I will ask you to supply references for the religious texts you refer to. I do not recall the bible or anywhere telling photographers or anyone else not to be involved in civil partnerships

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.

I have no problem with them being legally challenged when they break this or any other law

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.

And if they did include a conscience clause they would be forcing 'your' belief on others.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.

You really are living in the past if I am an atheist should I be allowed to refuse any service to you because you are religious? Maybe the state should deny all civil rights to religious people as the religious point of view is against the will of the state, which by the way is the will of the majority of it's citizens.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Basically I believe that if you are a self-employed photographer or hotel owner then it is your right to deny services to however you want. And the state should not be able to take away those rights as they see fit.

So the state should not be allowed intervene to prevent racism, sexism and homophobia then?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Perhaps it is an inferiority complex on your behalf.

Inferiority to WHAT? Please, explain what on earth I'd feel inferior to you for?

anotherlostie

I guess this conscience clause would apply elsewhere, such as to allow someone working in the Department of Social Welfare not to process anything relating to single mothers if they don't believe in sex before marriage. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

iguana wrote: »

Except it's not. If you decide to trade in the public domain you have to be open to all of the public. Everyone has a choice, trade publicly or don't. It's very straight forward and it allows total personal religious freedom.

I said it should be. But then that's just my opinion.

IrishTonyO wrote:

Again I will ask you to supply references for the religious texts you refer to. I do not recall the bible or anywhere telling photographers or anyone else not to be involved in civil partnerships.

I hope I don't have to point out where the bible is against homosexual practices.

IrishTonyO wrote:

I have no problem with them being legally challenged when they break this or any other law

This isn't law yet.

IrishTonyO wrote:

And if they did include a conscience clause they would be forcing 'your' belief on others.

No they wouldn't. How would including a conscience clause force religious belifes on others?

Oh and it's not really relevent but I'm an atheist by the way.

IrishTonyO wrote:

You really are living in the past if I am an atheist should I be allowed to refuse any service to you because you are religious?

Yes, I believe that since it is your hotel, your property you should able to sell your services, in this case stay in your hotel, to anyone you want. You should also have the right to deny your services to anyone you want.

IrishTonyO wrote:

Maybe the state should deny all civil rights to religious people as the religious point of view is against the will of the state, which by the way is the will of the majority of it's citizens.

The will of the state is not always the will of the majority of it's citizens.

L1011

anotherlostie wrote: »

I guess this conscience clause would apply elsewhere, such as to allow someone working in the Department of Social Welfare not to process anything relating to single mothers if they don't believe in sex before marriage. :rolleyes:

I asked Seymour Crawford if he'd agree with a 'conscience clause' allowing me to refuse the supply of medical technology (my job) to anyone who's beliefs went against mine.

He hasn't got back to me yet...

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I hope I don't have to point out where the bible is against homosexual practices.

About two pages away from where its against the wearing of woven fibres. I do hope you're not wearing any woven fibres?

Aard

It's all a moot point really:

1. What gay couple would even want a homophobic photographer or hotelier for their wedding? Even if they don't come out with something like, "We don't accomodate gays," their body-language will make it clear that they're not comfortable doing business with a gay couple. Then the gay couple leave, thankful that their big day isn't going to be ruined by differences of opinion. I don't think anybody in their right mind would even consider litigation during wedding-time.
2. I have never heard of a photographer or hotel refusing such business for any reason: money is money.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I said it should be. But then that's just my opinion.


I hope I don't have to point out where the bible is against homosexual practices.

Please do, especially where it says to deny rights or services to homosexuals. I suppose you believe that a man should be stoned to death if he curses his mother also then. As it condemns the unbeliever like yourself far more than homosexuals.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This isn't law yet.

The president is signing it into law this coming week

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No they wouldn't. How would including a conscience clause force religious belifes on others?

Oh and it's not really relevent but I'm an atheist by the way.

So I assume you believe photograhers, hoteliers etc should be allowed to deny you services too as you are an atheist and that is against some of their religious beliefs?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, I believe that since it is your hotel, your property you should able to sell your services, in this case stay in your hotel, to anyone you want. You should also have the right to deny your services to anyone you want.

Again what you believe in this area does not really matter as it is illegal and most right thinking people agree with it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The will of the state is not always the will of the majority of it's citizens.

Yeah that is why yhe bill was passed without even voting in Dail.

L1011

Has it passed the Seanad yet? Thought that was next Wednesday it was up?

There'll be some whimpering from Ronan Mullen and Jim Walsh, it'll pass, and Mary will sign it. End of.

Loved the protest posters begging her to "refuse to sign it". Firstly, she can't; and secondly, as the original laywer for the Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform I suspect she's relatively pleased with it!

IrishTonyO

Sorry yes the Seanad is next week 6th and 7th, it was rescheduled to get it through next week.

L1011

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Sorry yes the Seanad is next week 6th and 7th, it was rescheduled to get it through next week.

All a formality anyway.

The bill is passed. There is no conscience clause. There never will be one. Equality in the basics of provision of goods and services and State services has been protected, despite what the bigots wanted.

IrishTonyO

Very interesting article in the The Times today regarding the protests outside the Dail and the bishops

"SEANAD REPORT: THE CATHOLIC hierarchy should recognise that the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill by the Dáil without a vote showed that the bishops were more in tune with homophobes than they were with the people’s representatives, Joe O’Toole (Ind) said."

Re the protesters

"This type of behaviour should be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. The Bill’s passage was a landmark event.He welcomed the views of all groups, be they bishops or penitent. But the group outside the gate, who seemed to be some kind of urban guerrillas “working on behalf of the same point of view, are people who are completely vicious, aggressive and nasty, with a total preoccupation with the sexual habits of gay people in bed.”
Paul Coghlan (FG) said that in his 12 years or so as a senator, he had never experienced such a sense of viciousness and a determination to target members of the Oireachtas. Steps should be taken to ensure that any protest at the gates of parliament would be conducted peacefully."


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0703/1224273903547.html

LegacyUser

I study in the National Library and was told to "Go **** yourself, you ******" after trying to intervene on a debate. This does not affect me personally, not even in the slightest. Yes, I am gay, but that kind of response does nothing to me. It's like when a kid makes fun of you - you ignore it and brush it off.

I liked how they had more signs than protestors.

rovert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

SUP Lester Maddox

IrishTonyO

rovert wrote: »

SUP Lester Maddox

what?

jaffa20

IrishTonyO wrote: »

what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox

Maddox came to prominence as a staunch segregationist and maintained, to his death, that he never had any regrets. However, Tom Murphy (former Georgia House Speaker) stated: "He had a reputation as a segregationist, but he told us he was not a segregationist, but that you should be able to associate with whoever you wanted."[1]

Iwasfrozen

jaffa20 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox

Are you saying I'm a racist because I believe that people should not be forced into providing their services against their will to a particular set of people? Don't be ridiculous.

IrishTonyO

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Please do, especially where it says to deny rights or services to homosexuals. I suppose you believe that a man should be stoned to death if he curses his mother also then. As it condemns the unbeliever like yourself far more than homosexuals.



The president is signing it into law this coming week



So I assume you believe photograhers, hoteliers etc should be allowed to deny you services too as you are an atheist and that is against some of their religious beliefs?



Again what you believe in this area does not really matter as it is illegal and most right thinking people agree with it.



Yeah that is why yhe bill was passed without even voting in Dail.

Any answers to the above?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you saying I'm a racist because I believe that people should not be forced into providing their services against their will to a particular set of people? Don't be ridiculous.

Racist is a term used for discrimination on race, the clue is in the name

jaffa20

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you saying I'm a racist because I believe that people should not be forced into providing their services against their will to a particular set of people? Don't be ridiculous.

I didn't say anything. Tbh, your ridiculous rambling doesn't deserve a response.

Pink Adoptions

Good first step.
The question is: will it stop all other steps for 10 years?
Or will it lead slowly but surely to the family right that marriage would have granted instantly, with a simpler law?

Let's hope that ladder's rungs are not mile away one from the other, or we will stay very close from the ground indeed.

I suggest we wear the "white knot" every day till we get marriage, so our children have the marital families the constitution promised to all Irishkind: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055953620

ixoy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you saying I'm a racist because I believe that people should not be forced into providing their services against their will to a particular set of people? Don't be ridiculous.

So would you be happy then if all major Irish food outlets had an anti-Iwasfrozen policy and refused to serve you? Because it went against their belief system? Or are only certain types of discrimination okay with you?

Iwasfrozen

ixoy wrote: »

So would you be happy then if all major Irish food outlets had an anti-Iwasfrozen policy and refused to serve you? Because it went against their belief system? Or are only certain types of discrimination okay with you?

That should be within their right to do so. After all if it is their food they should be able to decide who to sell it to.

IrishTonyO

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That should be within their right to do so. After all if it is their food they should be able to decide who to sell it to.

So you are in favour of discrimination against anyone for any reason, that would be a great and stable society alright. Well I hope you get your wish and are discriminated against on a daily basis.

Now are you going to answer the questions I have asked you on a couple of occasions, especially why registrars who have a religious belief are making legal civil marriages between men and women, which in the eyes of their religion is wrong, sinful and immoral and is not a real marriage in their religions eyes?

pacific89

iwasfrozen - Are you gay? You seem to be posting in the LGBT forum a good few times, disagreeing with rights and such that should be afforded to gay people. Can you not accept that you are gay so take it out on this forum?

Or else, are you just pathologically obsessed with all things gay? If so, just stop and get a life. Gay people aren't hurting you or anyone else from that matter. The fact that people like you, and others, are opposed to rights for gay people is just sad and wrong. Instead of opposing equal rights legislation maybe you could do something more constructive with your time. You and the CC do not own the term''marriage''.

rovert

pacific89 wrote: »

iwasfrozen - Are you gay? You seem to be posting in the LGBT forum a good few times, disagreeing with rights and such that should be afforded to gay people. Can you not accept that you are gay so take it out on this forum?

I dont think it is unfair to say reading his posts he has a fairly clear preoccupation with compared to the vast majority of people.

Chuchoter

I don't really know if CP is a step in the right direction. I can't help but think of the Anglo-Irish treaty, where it was said to be a stepping stone to the other 6 counties and we never got the other 6 counties and to be honest I'm worried CP will turn out the exact same way in terms of children/civil marriages.

In terms of the conscience clause, on principal its completely wrong, but in a way I'm glad that people who think I shouldn't be celebrating my relationship aren't going to be forced to come and have a face on them the whole way through it.

Pink Adoptions

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't really know if CP is a step in the right direction. I can't help but think of the Anglo-Irish treaty, where it was said to be a stepping stone to the other 6 counties and we never got the other 6 counties and to be honest I'm worried CP will turn out the exact same way in terms of children/civil marriages.

In terms of the conscience clause, on principal its completely wrong, but in a way I'm glad that people who think I shouldn't be celebrating my relationship aren't going to be forced to come and have a face on them the whole way through it.

If we look at the French example, you are right: they did the PACS and stopped there.
They added a bit of step-parents rights recently, after 10 years.

But on the UK, they quickly allowed civil partners to adopt jointly.

So our only chance is to take it for now, we do not have a choice, and keep lobbying for marriage.
We need to get a firm commitment from Labour that they will vote for marriage in law as soon as they are in office, and not use the same coward "referendum is needed" attitude as FF. Because that is a lie of a "legal advice."

It is a tiny step, and it is in the right direction. But it is only the start.
Let's not let them say "they have enough", because we do not figth for our rights, but for our children's right, our children's constitutional right to be raised in a marital family.

What we really need is a pink household to stand up and say: think about my children... as first class citizens.

IrishTonyO

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't really know if CP is a step in the right direction. I can't help but think of the Anglo-Irish treaty, where it was said to be a stepping stone to the other 6 counties and we never got the other 6 counties and to be honest I'm worried CP will turn out the exact same way in terms of children/civil marriages.

In terms of the conscience clause, on principal its completely wrong, but in a way I'm glad that people who think I shouldn't be celebrating my relationship aren't going to be forced to come and have a face on them the whole way through it.

there is no conscience clause

Chuchoter

IrishTonyO wrote: »

there is no conscience clause

ok sorry, I was under the impression from all the argument that it had changed and they'd brought it in :P

IrishTonyO

crayolastereo wrote: »

ok sorry, I was under the impression from all the argument that it had changed and they'd brought it in :P

No it was just wishful thinking of one poster and people were saying why it was wrong

iguana

crayolastereo wrote: »

In terms of the conscience clause, on principal its completely wrong, but in a way I'm glad that people who think I shouldn't be celebrating my relationship aren't going to be forced to come and have a face on them the whole way through it.

There is no conscience clause. Some groups looked for it but were told it amounted to discrimination.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you saying I'm a racist because I believe that people should not be forced into providing their services against their will to a particular set of people? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, yes we are. You support the concept of people being allowed deny services based on race, hence you are a racist

Its not a particularly difficult connection to make.

Chuchoter

@Iwasfrozen: I am sick of hearing that homophobia is somehow not on the same level of prejudice of racism. Just because its in someones religion to be homophobic does not make it excusable. I am sure there were plenty of religious objectors to the civil rights movement in America who used the exact same logic: its my religion and I can do what ever I want and oppress whoever I want.

Goodshape

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

Yes. How you interpret your fairy tales religious texts should not, ever, be allowed to limit the freedoms and equality of others.

Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

Then you're a racist. Or at least support racism. Don't even try to pretend otherwise. Thankfully there are laws already in place to protect the rest of us from people like you.

Could you explain that?

The granting of "religious freedom" in this regard only serves to limit freedoms of others.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is this conscience clause such a problem? My estimation is two out of ten registrars will have no problem performing the ceremony.

I presume you meant two out of ten will have a problem - I'd love to know how you estimate that given that TDs themselves in the Dail stated that registrars hadn't contacted them about the issue at all. Also why have this mythical 20% never objected to marrying divorcees or muslims?

L1011

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I presume you meant two out of ten will have a problem - I'd love to know how you estimate that given that TDs themselves in the Dail stated that registrars hadn't contacted them about the issue at all. Also why have this mythical 20% never objected to marrying divorcees or muslims?

Or, indeed, objected to performing non-religious marriages at all...

If you're that staunch over religious marriage, you wouldn't perform non-religious ones.

TylerIE

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I presume you meant two out of ten will have a problem - I'd love to know how you estimate that given that TDs themselves in the Dail stated that registrars hadn't contacted them about the issue at all. Also why have this mythical 20% never objected to marrying divorcees or muslims?

or those who had kids already, or who wore glasses, or the men who were wearing cotton and polyester shirts, or the future wives who had worked in a bar on a Sunday while in college, or the men who did a bit of Sunday gardening! All abominations!

Funny how those who objected to the CP bill altogether picked on sodomy and same sex couples as the main talking point- they forgot the thousands more couples who have been co-habiting for years but not got married (e.g. protestant and catholic partners who couldnt owing to family objections, or where one partner had been previously married, etc)

Iwasfrozen

Goodshape wrote: »

Yes. How you interpret your fairy tales religious texts should not, ever, be allowed to limit the freedoms and equality of others.

1. I am atheist. I'm tired of people thinking I'm religious.
2. The only freedom being limited is the freedom of those of a religious faith to oppose civil partnership.

Goodshape wrote: »

Then you're a racist. Or at least support racism. Don't even try to pretend otherwise. Thankfully there are laws already in place to protect the rest of us from people like you.

What a horrible thing to say to someone. Backing a persons right to offer their service, in this case a hotel place, to whoever they please does not make me a racist. And I would like to see you prove otherwise.

Goodshape wrote: »

The granting of "religious freedom" in this regard only serves to limit freedoms of others.

No it doesn't. The sam sex couple can simply book another hotel, registrar, photographer. Their freedom is not being limited in any way.

@Iwasfrozen: I am sick of hearing that homophobia is somehow not on the same level of prejudice of racism. Just because its in someones religion to be homophobic does not make it excusable. I am sure there were plenty of religious objectors to the civil rights movement in America who used the exact same logic: its my religion and I can do what ever I want and oppress whoever I want.

First off I am not homophobic. Secondly the word homophobia always amused me you see the word "phobia" mean an "irrational fear of..." while "homo" means "the same as". So in my mind homophobia sounds like a condition were people are afraid of a pair of anything, socks, shoes, anything! That's why I don't use the word. That and it has negative connections.

Anyway back on topic, once you see gays being lynched of a tree by the KKK then you can say what you just said to me. Until that day don't dare compare yourself with the civil rights movement. We have no idea what those people went through. Some of the stories would make your skin crawl.

rainbow kirby

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyway back on topic, once you see gays being lynched of a tree by the KKK then you can say what you just said to me. Untill that day don't dare compare yourself with the civil rights movement. You have no idea what those people went through. Some of the stories would make your skin crawl.

Line crossed. You've done nothing but troll this thread passive-aggressively. Take a week off.

TylerIE

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyway back on topic, once you see gays being lynched of a tree by the KKK then you can say what you just said to me. Until that day don't dare compare yourself with the civil rights movement. We have no idea what those people went through. Some of the stories would make your skin crawl.

Lynched to a tree?
Maybe being tortured and tied to a tree like Matthew Shepard Doesnt Count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

or corrective rapes dont either?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa

or maybe the fact that a 12 year old felt the need to act in a manner that killed off-duty Police Trainee James Parkes
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Fighting-For-Life-After-Homophobic-Attack-By-Mob-In-Liverpool/Article/200910415418126?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15418126_Man_Fighting_For_Life_After_Homophobic_Attack_By_Mob_In_Liverpool

or being sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for being gay?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10130240.stm

and wasnt there a bomb in London a few years ago??

or the number of people who were left with serious injuries after gay bashings in Dublin CC in 2005... If you want Il describe in detail the injuries sustained by one (having seen them first hand it would be quite easy, seeing as you do talk about stories to make your skin crawl) but this is a public forum...

or perhaps the countless stories of men in the US being tied by their genitals and dragged round fields or up roads by horses/ cars?

Or the story a taxi driver gave me of how when he was growing up "a bit a crack used to be going into town on a Saturday night and catching the queers to give them a hidin... and then robbing them"... I felt safe that night, thankfully he didn't know id come from a gay venue and i got dropped off away from my house...

And I understand minority groups prior to the Civil Rights movement had a higher rate of suicide and depression owing to discrimination? well what a coincidence - so have the LGBT community in Ireland and elsewhere....

Or the fact that essentially as a gay individual you dont own your property the same way as a straight couple do. If I have a stay-at-home partner I could work hard to ensure that my partner is comfortable should I ever die... However Il find it harder to earn money as I dont get the married persons tax credit, or a share of their tax free allowance. And my family will automatically inherit my belongings should I die unless I make a will... Oh but even if I do make a will my partner will be subject to full inheritance tax.... or if I dont die - my partner doesnt have automatic next of kin rights with regard to my business/ professional / health....

You my good man/woman, can get married, avail of fantastic tax reliefs designed to promote the family, and should anything unforseen happen to you, you can lie in your grave knowing full well that your partner is fully catered for due to your efforts.

And the minority groups in the Civil Rights movement had to go to segregated schools.... wait - lots of LGBT teens have to leave school due to bullying... and the luckier (if you could call them that) ones just have to change school...


Wow, iwasfrozen, you have actually made me realise that the struggle for Equal rights IS ACTUALLY so similar to the civil rights movement....

baby and crumble

Anyway back on topic, once you see gays being lynched of a tree by the KKK then you can say what you just said to me. Untill that day don't dare compare yourself with the civil rights movement. You have no idea what those people went through. Some of the stories would make your skin crawl.

Ok, first off, you sound like a git. You also sound like a troll, but for once, I'm going to bite. I have no idea what 'those people' went through? Some of the stories would make my skin crawl, hmmm?

Try these:

Mathew Shepherd: crucified, tortured and murdered for being gay.

Jody Dobrowski- beaten to death with such violence he had to be identified by his fingerprints

Brandon Teena- a trans man raped and murdered by his friends

2009 Tel Aviv- random guys walks into a gay centre, kills 2 people injures 15 others

In december 2007 Craig Gee was attacked in Australia and beaten so part of his skull was left to powder.

In 2004 Jamaican activist Brian Williamson was attacked and chopped with a machete 70 times.

In Brazil activists believe that over 2500 gay people have been attacked and KILLEd for being gay between 1980-2005.

Declan Flynn was beaten to death in Fairview in 1983, for being gay.

General wiki articel on gay bashing

Don't YOU dare come in here and tell gay people that as a community, we don't know about violence that stems from hatred.

Don't YOU dare defend someone who tells ANY individual that they deserve less respect than another.

i suggest you educate yourself better on a) the Bill you are castigating (the Bill is GONE through the Dail, there will never be a conscience clause, so why bleat on about it?) and ) the group of people you are attempting to shove under the carpet. Because right now ou look like an ill educated moron.

And telling us you're an atheist doesn't absolve you from being a prat.

baby and crumble

@lst- we think alike, eh? Sorry for cross posting some of your links, your post wasn't up when I hit reply.

TylerIE

zoegh wrote: »

@lst- we think alike, eh? Sorry for cross posting some of your links, your post wasn't up when I hit reply.

Lol ye sorry nor was yours! I kinda flipped there "iwasfrozens" response....
and kept thinking of more and more to write. Didnt know about Brandon Teena though, tx for the link!