Can Norris be President?

Lenny Lovett

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

efb

Iceland doesn't seem to have that problem.

I wouldn't let another state's unegalitarian beliefs deny equal rights to anyone in this republic.

galwayrush

Those countries can follow a proper protocol for our head of state, just as we show proper respect for official visits from foreign heads here.:cool:

lynski

well polygamy is illegal here but you will find it practiced by the heads of some of those states.
David Norris is an honest, educated, brave Irish man, he would be a wonderful president for Ireland in the 20-teens.

Eliot Rosewater

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

I think the best reason to vote for Norris is that it will be giving the two fingers to regressive homophobic regimes.

Manach

I'd be very interested in seeing his tactics in wooing the Catholic vote in a presidential race.

bijapos

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

How the hell would it bar him from this? If someone doesn't want Norris in their country because he is gay thats their business. Not going to happen tbh as the international outcry and damage to the reputation of that nation it would cause would be enormous.

But how would it stop Norris receiving visitors? If they don't want to show up they don't. Doesn't stop us inviting other nations.

Guido Westerwelle is Germanys foreign minister, is openly gay and has taken his partner on overseas visits, he hasn't been stopped. Klaus Wowerit is the Mayor of Berlin, also openly gay, it hasn't stopped anyone visiting Berlin in an official capacity afaik.



Btw who said that on the radio? It sounds like a bit of scaremongering spin.

Tristram

Doubt it would happen. Would he run as an independent candidate?

wobzilla1

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the best reason to vote for Norris is that it will be giving the two fingers to regressive homophobic regimes.

That's a great way to use your vote. Let's vote for him just because he's gay. That's exactly what happened in the US with Obama

duckysauce

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

alot of those countries the men wear dresses and are married to various women and have hundreds of kids , and we have no problem with that

Lenny Lovett

bijapos wrote: »

Btw who said that on the radio? It sounds like a bit of scaremongering spin.

It was on Brendan O'Brien's show on Newstalk yesterday morning. I think it was Abie Philbin Bowman (but not 100% sure!). They did say tha David Norris was coming on the show later but I couldn't hang on to listen. Must get it on the playback. Someone else said about him wooing the Catholic vote. I doubt that'll be a problem nor will his sexuality. I think people know him well enough by now. I wouldn't vote for him (as I will not vote for any current occupant of the Dail or Seanad) because I don't want anyone who has been involved either directly or indirectly in our current situation to benefit any further from my tax money by living it up at our expense.

baalthor

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

Presumably homosexual acts are illegal in these countries just like they were here until the 90s.

Some of these countries also ban adultery; if they ever stop visits from foreign politicians guilty of that "crime", then the diplomatic calendar is going to be pretty empty

Liam Byrne

wobzilla1 wrote: »

That's a great way to use your vote. Let's vote for him just because he's gay. That's exactly what happened in the US with Obama

Obama is gay ? :eek:

* just ballhopping : I agree with your point

timespast

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the best reason to vote for Norris is that it will be giving the two fingers to regressive homophobic regimes.

The best reason?

If that's all he has to offer is his "gayness" then I'll give him a wide berth.

Why on earth would I want to vote for someone who is a single issue candidate?

TBH, I get the impression that he's even embarassed to be seen as Irish....... another British wannabe.

AlekSmart

A lot of those countries the men wear dresses and are married to various women and have hundreds of kids , and we have no problem with that

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60325E20100104

I suspect President Senator Proffessor Norris would be more than able to chat in front of the Áras fireplace with the likes of Jacob Zuma....the current South African prezz........"Ah Jacob...how are the families keeping these days ....?"

The sooner the good Prof Norris gets into the Áras the better the place will be,if only to observe the effects of a tsunami sweeping through the C&W wing of the Republican Party !

Brussels Sprout

wobzilla1 wrote: »

That's a great way to use your vote. Let's vote for him just because he's gay. That's exactly what happened in the US with Obama

This belongs on the comments section of the Fox news website.

Lockstep

His sexuality really should be a non-issue; anyone who votes for or against him because of his sexuality is wasting their vote.

Jeboa Safari

He would be a joke of a president I think, far too hyper

IrishTonyO

David Norris is far too outspoken to be president. As president he would have to be impartial in everything and keep his opinions to himself. I don't reckon he would be able to do this.

Eliot Rosewater

timespast wrote: »

If that's all he has to offer is his "gayness" then I'll give him a wide berth.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

His sexuality really should be a non-issue; anyone who votes for or against him because of his sexuality is wasting their vote.

Come on, guys. The office of president is a meaningless position. It doesn't matter who gets it. The only difference between Norris and the others is that Norris' election would actually annoy a couple of regressive homophobes. Given that there's no other issue to base my vote on, I see that as a good enough one.

(Unless, of course, someone would like to tell exactly how candidate A will be different to candidate B in their operation of the presidency?)

timespast wrote: »

TBH, I get the impression that he's even embarassed to be seen as Irish....... another British wannabe.

Well, I believe he holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him!

oceanclub

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

Many of these countries would not like a female President either. Are you saying we should vote based on the most extreme religious bigotry of other countries?

P.

timespast

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Come on, guys. The office of president is a meaningless position. It doesn't matter who gets it. The only difference between Norris and the others is that Norris' election would actually annoy a couple of regressive homophobes. Given that there's no other issue to base my vote on, I see that as a good enough one.

(Unless, of course, someone would like to tell exactly how candidate A will be different to candidate B in their operation of the presidency?)



Well, I believe he holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him!

What a buffoon Norris is........ personally I couldn't care less if he was into bestiality....those that use sexuality as a political platform only succeed in marginalising themselves. Gay community....... I though sexuality shouldn't come into it?

As for 1916.....if he or you are being serious then thats made my mind up.
These same people seem to have no problem with lionising those from WWI.

Deep Easterly

IrishTonyO wrote: »

David Norris is far too outspoken to be president. As president he would have to be impartial in everything and keep his opinions to himself. I don't reckon he would be able to do this.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a change to have someone holding the office of presidency to actually voice an opinion. As a nation, we are muted and dismissed when we do question what is going on so perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking.

Eliot Rosewater

timespast wrote: »

What a buffoon Norris is........ personally I couldn't care less if he was into bestiality....those that use sexuality as a political platform only succeed in marginalising themselves. Gay community....... I though sexuality shouldn't come into it?

I'm not gay. And Norris isn't using his sexuality as a "platform". I'm merely saying that his being gay and president would have some marginal side effects that I would like to see brought about.

timespast wrote: »

As for 1916.....if he or you are being serious then thats made my mind up.

A typical response to anyone who has the gall to question the nationalist scheme of history, it seems. In any case, the issue is off topic. Take it to History & Heritage if you want.

Eliot Rosewater

Deep Easterly wrote: »

On the other hand, maybe it would be a change to have someone holding the office of presidency to actually voice an opinion. As a nation, we are muted and dismissed when we do question what is going on so perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking.

That's a very good point. I don't mind people holding the 1916 risers to be heroes. What annoys me is that average Joe soap will call you a West Brit if you digress from the national opinion. Norris has a very unique personality, compared to other politicians, and the change that would bring would be welcomed by me.

timespast

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm not gay. And Norris isn't using his sexuality as a "platform". I'm merely saying that his being gay and president would have some marginal side effects that I would like to see occur.



A typical response to anyone who has the gall to question the nationalist scheme of history, it seems. In any case, the issue is off topic. Take it to History & Heritage if you want.

You're the one who brought up 1916.....question all you like.....but if you don't like a reply don't post.

As for his sexuality I hold another point of view.....calm down.

I'll leave this thread alone as it's getting as ridiculous as Norris himself.

Lenny Lovett

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Come on, guys. The office of president is a meaningless position. It doesn't matter who gets it. The only difference between Norris and the others is that Norris' election would actually annoy a couple of regressive homophobes. Given that there's no other issue to base my vote on, I see that as a good enough one.

(Unless, of course, someone would like to tell exactly how candidate A will be different to candidate B in their operation of the presidency?)

The fact that he spent the last twenty years sitting in that debating club known as the Seanad talking sh1t with his mates at our vast expense should preclude him from carrying on with his shameless sponging.

Deep Easterly wrote: »

On the other hand, maybe it would be a change to have someone holding the office of presidency to actually voice an opinion. As a nation, we are muted and dismissed when we do question what is going on so perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking.

He's said precious little about the topics that matter for the past twenty years or more so why would he start now?

Eliot Rosewater

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The fact that he spent the last twenty years sitting in that debating club known as the Seanad talking sh1t with his mates at our vast expense should preclude him from carrying on with his shameless sponging.

Why? How will his occupation for the last 20 years impact upon how he acts as president? If anything it makes him more suitable because he will be familiar with most members of parliament.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

He's said precious little about the topics that matter for the past twenty years or more so why would he start now?

Yes, because equal rights for homosexuals don't matter.

Deep Easterly

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The fact that he spent the last twenty years sitting in that debating club known as the Seanad talking sh1t with his mates at our vast expense should preclude him from carrying on with his shameless sponging.

He's said precious little about the topics that matter for the past twenty years or more so why would he start now?

Fair point. I am just speaking in general. I am no fan of Norris as I do find that he is a bit militant on the one issue. However, it would be good for the country if the president (whoever it may be) did have voice. For a start, it would give more purpose and substance to the office of presidency than is currently the case.

harney

I thought this was going to be a thread about Chuck :cool:

Not living in the country at the moment so I am out of the day to day crap, I don't see why he couldn't be president. I can't imagine he would be any better or worse than any other that we've had.

baalthor

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, I believe he holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him!

I think that's Kevin Myers you're referring to ...