Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Cat Melodeon

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

RefulgentGnomon

He was born in Leopoldville

Nijmegen

Norris did back that poet down in Nepal.

That being said, at least Norris's arguments have nuance.

These lads are more like a massive battering ram with a bible on top.

Folks like these are what got us having big rows over whether or not even married couples could have condoms, women obligated to have sex with their husbands and no option of divorce.

They're a throwback and ought to be pitied. Few right thinking people would support their extreme views.

Elle Collins

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable...


He sounds like a sick fuk to me. :mad:

Einhard

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Chuchoter

Einhard wrote: »

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Yeah I'm not seeing too many nuances either. I'm mostly just seeing him say sex with minors should be legal.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

strobe

crayolastereo wrote: »

Yeah I'm not seeing too many nuances either. I'm mostly just seeing him say sex with minors should be legal.

Ahh that's where you're going wrong. He's not saying sex with minors is fine. He's saying foreplay with minors is fine. Which I think we can all agree on. :eek::eek::eek:

What a creep. Wouldn't let him babysit for me that's for sure.

Snakeblood

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

To be honest, I'm not seeing very much in favour of Norris here.

"The right of unfettered sexual activity guided by the principle of mutual consent would be Norris's perception of the way things should be, with a bar only on intimidation, bullying or bribery. He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age".

So if you can persuade a five year old it should be ok to bang him/her, it's ok.

edit:
Maybe he specified some age limit I'm not aware he did in some other bit of the article.

thebigbiffo

hmmmm. i'm not quite sure about his use of examples - a person of authority with a hand down a boys pants is fine compared to a child killer, they're both bad for society.

i kind of see where he's coming from alll the same - it's just a very very difficult point to articulate without people branding you a peado, so i wont even begin to try

bronte

prinz wrote: »

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

The_Minister

Tbh, I never approved of Norris' support of a certain poet, but what really bothers me is that I'm not sure he has the dignity or gravitas for our President.

Foreign leaders all meet our head of state, and this country can be embarassing enough (though I love it) without having to worry about Norris cracking masturbation jokes to the UN.

markphillips

Wasn't this article written around the time the whole age of consent thing was in the papers and many people were saying there should be some lee-way given? Just saying, in case that adds some context.

And I don't think he was saying groping is fine! He said that perving on kids and sexually assaulting them are at "different ends of the spectrum". He didn't say that "spectrum" is a good one!

I think his words were poorly chosen but he has never campaigned or spoken for the abolition of the age of consent. He has also never been accused of any wrong-doing. I think he was trying to say there are different levels of abuse in that interview, but should have certainly been more clear.

Saying he was endorsing sex with minors is wide of the mark IMO.

prinz

bronte wrote: »

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

Did I say they were? :rolleyes:

oppenheimer1

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the first paragraph of the quoted Magill article state that he thinks theres merit in the idea of allowing (legalising?) homosexual sexual relationships of the type that were found in ancient Greece, between boys and older men. He also states that at this time in his life he wouldn't want to take a younger boy under his wing but when he was younger would have liked an older man.


For such an intelligent man one has to wonder at the wisdom of coming out with the statement above or his defence of O'Searcaigh. Nuanced or not, he must have known it would be interpreted that he didn't see anything wrong with sexual relationships between boys and men. It was stupid of anyone who has ideas of getting elected in possibly the most conservative country in europe.

Would I vote for him, it depends on who the other candidates are of course. Joycean scholar or not, I don't think hes particularly qualified for the job and would I would vote for a Constitutional lawyer. The two Marys haven't done a bad job, so theres a lot to be said for them (lawyers that is). That said I wouldn't vote for Bacik no matter what.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

Something like that could well be nuanced. I don't know if the male teacher was shown as predatory or not. Was the male teacher the villain of the piece? Also, was this play actually exploiting children or encouraging\facilitating abuse?

I don't know, but I do know nuance comes into things more than picking a couple of lines out of context.

For instance: Silence of the Lambs
Hannibal Lecter: A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
- Lacking nuance, this is obviously encouraging people to eat census takers, and also the drinking of chianti.

bronte

prinz wrote: »

Did I say they were? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

No you criticised people for supporting Stephen Fry and condemning the oh-so-delightful Catholic Church.

Einhard

bronte wrote: »

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

I don't think that was the point, but rather that Fry condemned child abuse, and yet wrote a play in which it was portrayed as a positive sexual experience.

bronte

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think that was the point, but rather that Fry condemned child abuse, and yet wrote a play in which it was portrayed as a positive sexual experience.

Do you think he himself agrees it's a positive sexual experience?

Morlar

I must be one of dem religious crazies too because I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.

Snakeblood

markphillips wrote: »

Wasn't this article written around the time the whole age of consent thing was in the papers and many people were saying there should be some lee-way given? Just saying, in case that adds some context.

And I don't think he was saying groping is fine! He said that perving on kids and sexually assaulting them are at "different ends of the spectrum". He didn't say that "spectrum" is a good one!

I think his words were poorly chosen but he has never campaigned or spoken for the abolition of the age of consent. He has also never been accused of any wrong-doing. I think he was trying to say there are different levels of abuse in that interview, but should have certainly been more clear.

Saying he was endorsing sex with minors is wide of the mark IMO.

His quote is:"The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". I'm not sure what context you could add that makes this anything less than saying 'It doesn't matter how young they are, as long as they say yes".

Now, he might mean 'It doesn't matter how long they are as long as they say yes and understand the ramifications' but then, we are dealing with kids here. THe point of the age of consent is that we pretty much don't think kids are capable of making fully rational choices about their welfare, as the front row of a Justing Bieber concert will tell you.

prinz

Snakeblood wrote: »

Something like that could well be nuanced. I don't know if the male teacher was shown as predatory or not. Was the male teacher the villain of the piece? Also, was this play actually exploiting children or encouraging\facilitating abuse?

Not the villain, actually the 'hero', as for encouraging/facilitating abuse..no. On the other hand encouraging/facilitating sexual interest in a 13 year old? Debatable.

Einhard

bronte wrote: »

Do you think he himself agrees it's a positive sexual experience?

Doubtful. But when one portrays it as such it sends a message that shouldn't really be sent. I do think though that some homosexual men are somewhat ambivalent when it comes to sleeping with young boys. Norris' pointing out the difference between paedophilia and pederasty is a case in point. Of course there's a difference, but both are wrong. O' Searcaigh is another example, and I think that Fry's production of a play that portrays sex with a minor in a positive light is along the same lines.

Elle Collins

markphillips wrote: »

And I don't think he was saying groping is fine! He said that perving on kids and sexually assaulting them are at "different ends of the spectrum".

Putting your hands down a childs pants IS sexual assault, and despite David Norris's pervy views, it is not on the minor end of any spectrum.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Not the villain, actually the 'hero', as for encouraging/facilitating abuse..no. On the other hand encouraging/facilitating sexual interest in a 13 year old? Debatable.

But that's down to nuance, right? Which was the point I was arguing. If the dude said that, and then got lets say, hit by a lightning bolt by god for his sins, then probably the overall implication would be that molesting kids was wrong. Regardless of one line.

Snakeblood

Elle Collins wrote: »

Putting your hands down a childs pants IS sexual assault, and despite David Norris's pervy views, it is not on the minor end of any spectrum.

Well, it is kind of. It's still a very arrestable spectrum though.

prinz

bronte wrote: »

:rolleyes:
No you criticised people for supporting Stephen Fry and condemning the oh-so-delightful Catholic Church.

I'll give you a chance to back out of this one with the knowledge that Stephen Fry is an idol of mine, one of my all-time favourite comedians and all round intellectuals.

The point was not what Stephen said, but the fact that sometimes even the smartest of individuals say things they probably shouldn't. It's all very well saying 'it's obviously nuanced'......

bronte

Einhard wrote: »

Doubtful. But when one portrays it as such it sends a message that shouldn't really be sent.

No artistic license for all then...how lovely.

bronte

prinz wrote: »

I'll give you a chance to back out of this one

Oh gee thanks Prinz!

Bobby42

those websites love quoting the bible! I wonder have they read the parts where it says its an abomination to eat shrimp and other shellfish, and you cant wear clothes of two cloth. I'd say their hypocrisy knows no bounds. they really should just give up and do something else with their lives, gay rights and gay marriage are inevitable.