Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Einhard

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just to bring this back to Norris - did he not clarify that he was referring to people above the age of consent?

I don't think he was clarifying so much as backtracking. It's clear that he believes that a relationship between quite young boys and grown men can be a positive, healthy thing.

Snakeblood

Einhard wrote: »

No, I'm relying on the reviews that I've managed to google.

Ye-eah. Me too. Some of the reviews call the main character a grotesque and some call it a defence of the love between a teacher and his student. I'm not sure you can take it seriously as a defence if you aren't supposed to like the main character.

Einhard

Snakeblood wrote: »

Ye-eah. Me too. Some of the reviews call the main character a grotesque and some call it a defence of the love between a teacher and his student. I'm not sure you can take it seriously as a defence if you aren't supposed to like the main character.

Well I can only work with what I'm given

But Having read the few reviews there are on the play, they all allude to the positive characterisation of the teacher. Indeed, several noted that Fry based it on an infatuation that he himself had with a young boy when he was in his twenties. How true that is I don't know, but it would raise some questions were it verified.

AnonoBoy

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think he was clarifying so much as backtracking. It's clear that he believes that a relationship between quite young boys and grown men can be a positive, healthy thing.

Backtracking vs clarifying.

It's a tough one to call. To be honest I have to go back and read the interview before I'd make a call on it myself.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Ye-eah. Me too. Some of the reviews call the main character a grotesque and some call it a defence of the love between a teacher and his student. I'm not sure you can take it seriously as a defence if you aren't supposed to like the main character.

So people are forming their opinion on the character without actually having read or seen the play?

I dunno, if a reviewer had an agenda they could spin it one way or another. It's a bit Daily Mail to just slam something and say it portrays a relationship in a certain light without actually having read it.

And it seems that opinion varies between reviews, am I right?

Snakeblood

Einhard wrote: »

Well I can only work with what I'm given

But Having read the few reviews there are on the play, they all allude to the positive characterisation of the teacher. Indeed, several noted that Fry based it on an infatuation that he himself had with a young boy when he was in his twenties. How true that is I don't know, but it would raise some questions were it verified.

It was staged when Fry was 23, and what I read was that he wrote it in school...

Misanthrope

david75 wrote: »

This site is actually quite alarming.
These people are really crazy and have it in for David Norris in a big way. A lot of it is quite libelous too.

http://www.davidnorris4president.com/index.html

But this place is even worse. Talk about misinformed willfull ignorance
http://www.campaignforconscience.org/

Can someone explain these religious nuts to me please? they always bang on about Leviticus and God being anti-gay but the same book has this in it.
Leviticus 19:18, "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Are they just crazy angry people who need a target?

These pathetic fools would rather see their own children raped by priests than know that somewhere, two benders might be getting married.Gays practically run the wedding industry.What the hell could it possibly matter if they planned one for their selves?

Leviticus does denounce homosexuality as an abomination, but also shellfish.Maybe they could hold protests outside oyster farms.Perriwinkles = purest evil.

But the greatest abomination of all is Gay Shellfish getting married.

oppenheimer1

prinz wrote: »

He did, but was he really? Raises questions that he should address if he has any hope of getting the presidency.

In a country that has been rocked by homosexual sex scandals I cannot actually see him getting the Labour nomination. The anti-norris campaign would be very strong and outspoken and the electorate does listen to them (Remember Lisbon/Nice). If FG run a good candidate he/she will win by a landslide.

prinz

Anywho back to the original point, it's a bit ridiculous to decide to vote for Norris because of these websites from the OP.

Snakeblood

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Backtracking vs clarifying.

It's a tough one to call. To be honest I have to go back and read the interview before I'd make a call on it myself.



So people are forming their opinion on the character without actually having read or seen the play?

I dunno, if a reviewer had an agenda they could spin it one way or another. It's a bit Daily Mail to just slam something and say it portrays a relationship in a certain light without actually having read it.

And it seems that opinion varies between reviews, am I right?

The interview is upthere. It seemed pretty negative to me, and I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

On the play: Yeah. We're judging from the available info.
I think by and large I'd be inclined towards the benefit of the doubt because it was the end of the 70s and he was out to shock. At least, that would be my interpretation of a 1980 play by a 23 year old about paedophilia.

Einhard

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Backtracking vs clarifying.

It's a tough one to call. To be honest I have to go back and read the interview before I'd make a call on it myself.

I don't think it's that tough to be honest. A clarification involves clearing up a point that was in some way unclear, backtracking involves contradicting what was actually said in the interview. Norris made no mention at all of age in the interview, but rather emphasised consent. He's an intelligent man, and it's hard to believe that he somehow didn't realise what he was saying, or didn't mean it.

I dunno, if a reviewer had an agenda they could spin it one way or another. It's a bit Daily Mail to just slam something and say it portrays a relationship in a certain light without actually having read it.

And it seems that opinion varies between reviews, am I right?

Well the articles I went by all lauded Latin! and gave it positive reviews.

AnonoBoy

Einhard wrote: »

Well I can only work with what I'm given

But Having read the few reviews there are on the play, they all allude to the positive characterisation of the teacher. Indeed, several noted that Fry based it on an infatuation that he himself had with a young boy when he was in his twenties. How true that is I don't know, but it would raise some questions were it verified.

Well the articles I went by all lauded Latin! and gave it positive reviews.

There's a difference between giving the play a good review and saying the teachers are portrayed in a good light.

Examples:

"There's nothing big or clever about suggesting that public-school teachers are all unbalanced perverts of one kind or another"
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~shutters/reviews/02143.htm

"Needless to say, this is humour at its least PC, and it does take a while to become completely convinced that laughing at the exploits of these two hideous characters is actually an acceptable thing to do."
http://www.australianstage.com.au/reviews/canberra/latin-or-tobacco-and-boys--everyman-theatre-2657.html



Also it looks like there was protests when the play was first staged:

"West explains that when it was staged at the Edinburgh Fringe there were “protests and letters” complaining about the performance of material that “glorifies and endorses paedophilia”. “Well of course, it doesn’t,” says West."
http://www.bmamag.com/articles/features/20090610-latin-or-tobacco-and-boys/


Of course there are others that seem to indicate the teachers are portrayed quite well.

CathyMoran

I never knew that bout Norris - sad really as I voted for him when he was in the Senate.

Snakeblood

To be fair, I do find his voice very annoying.

Copper23

Is this whole thing now gonna turn into a bit spat where everyone who doesn't want to vote for him must be a homophobe from the middle ages, instead of, ya know... voting for the best person for the job?

Great, he's running! Good for him... what about the other candidates? What will they bring to the table? Who is the best ambassador for the country? If he is the number one I will vote for him, if someone else looks a better option I'll vote for them, I just hope this whole thing doesn't become about pushing an agenda rather than voting in our new president.

Snakeblood

Copper23 wrote: »

Is this whole thing now gonna turn into a bit spat where everyone who doesn't want to vote for him must be a homophobe from the middle ages, instead of, ya know... voting for the best person for the job?

Great, he's running! Good for him... what about the other candidates? What will they bring to the table? Who is the best ambassador for the country? If he is the number one I will vote for him, if someone else looks a better option I'll vote for them, I just hope this whole thing doesn't become about pushing an agenda rather than voting in our new president.

Has anyone called you a homophobe yet? Has anything like that happened?

It really gets on my tits when people go on about how OH THE PC BRIGADE WILL GET ON ME FOR THIS, when they haven't, and they really generally don't give a crap about you unless you start actually interrupting someone else's quality of life with ill thought out racist\homophobic garbage. So shut it until they do. Vote for whoever you want. I won't be voting for him for my own reasons.

AnonoBoy

Copper23 wrote: »

Is this whole thing now gonna turn into a bit spat where everyone who doesn't want to vote for him must be a homophobe from the middle ages, instead of, ya know... voting for the best person for the job?

Have you read the thread at all?

Einhard

Copper23 wrote: »

Is this whole thing now gonna turn into a bit spat where everyone who doesn't want to vote for him must be a homophobe from the middle ages, instead of, ya know... voting for the best person for the job?

In fairness, it's those who won't vote for him solely because he's gay that are being described as homophobes from the middle ages.

thebullkf

CathyMoran wrote: »

Disgusting - those web sites must be a joke (and not a funny one at that). Are there really such sick minded people in the coutry still.

Norris was around TCD a bit when I was there and I had the fortune to meet him - it would be hard to find a more elequent, witty and intelligent man around.

I must admit that I would vote for him if he ran.

3 mary's in Arás :eek::eek: :P:P:P


this part i agree with.



this part i would not.

Cat Melodeon

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?

In a society where heterosexuality was until recently the only legal sexuality, for most young gay men and women there were/are very few ways to express sexuality or gain experience until you are fully adult. this is in contrast to young heterosexuals who are 'allowed' to be sexual at a much younger age (e.g. hyperfeminine tweenies becoming sexualised before they even hit puberty, the normalness of young teens having crushes on adults, whether pop stars or whatever). Many gay kids don't feel that their sexuality is legitimate and try to hide it until they feel freer to explore it; some end up having to engage in risky behaviour in order to have any contact at all with other gays (not all, but some). Norris says that when he was young he would have relished having an older male to 'initiate' him. He is not advocating pedophilia, but is saying that when he was younger (and under the current age of consent) he would have fancied a bit of experimentation, same as many other kids who don't wait until the age of consent before engaging in sexual behaviour. He does not say he wants to shag children.

As for the rest, he is right that there is a certain hysteria about paedophila in the media. He agrees that sex with juveniles is harmful. He's right that there is a spectrum of behaviour regarding paedophilia, with some being more harmful than others (and he does not condone any of it)

The rest is the analysis of the reporter:

He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent.

"did not appear to..." - was he asked outright? What did he say?

When I asked about incest, he hesitated

I would too. In a conversation about the age of consent, incest would not be the first thing to spring to mind.

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.

And keeping in mind his early statement that sex with juveniles would be harmful (and thus acceptance of the wisdom of an age of consent) I don't see what is wrong with this statement.

thebullkf

Einhard wrote: »

In fairness, it's those who won't vote for him solely because he's gay that are being described as homophobes from the middle ages.

+1

wexfordia

ScienceNerd wrote: »

See this encourages me to vote for him just to piss them off

So the (only) reason you would vote for David Norris is to annoy these people ? A bit silly I think.

david75

It's a shame that someone who happens to be gay and in the public eye, no matter who they are, always seem to encounter paedohilia being thrown at them at some point. The quotes above are wildly out of context, there was debate at the time they were given about lowering the age of consent for gays as had just been done in the UK.

It wasn't a topic Norris brought up in an interview because it was something he was mulling over or considering getting into. He simply meant if as a young gay man if an older gay man had taken an interest in him and shown him the ropes socially9and presumably sexually) he'd have been saved a load of grief. there isn't a gay guy out there that couldn't see the value in that let me tell ye.

As to the enoch guy and his sites, i wasn't in anyway promoting it, just making people aware of it as a topic of discussion about how sad and backward a section of our population really are. He's gonna get headlines for that site in some form and sadly his cause is going to find traction with a certain type of people.

thebullkf

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

In a society where heterosexuality was until recently the only legal sexuality, for most young gay men and women there were/are very few ways to express sexuality or gain experience until you are fully adult. this is in contrast to young heterosexuals who are 'allowed' to be sexual at a much younger age (e.g. hyperfeminine tweenies becoming sexualised before they even hit puberty, the normalness of young teens having crushes on adults, whether pop stars or whatever). Many gay kids don't feel that their sexuality is legitimate and try to hide it until they feel freer to explore it; some end up having to engage in risky behaviour in order to have any contact at all with other gays (not all, but some). Norris says that when he was young he would have relished having an older male to 'initiate' him. He is not advocating pedophilia, but is saying that when he was younger (and under the current age of consent) he would have fancied a bit of experimentation, same as many other kids who don't wait until the age of consent before engaging in sexual behaviour. He does not say he wants to shag children.

As for the rest, he is right that there is a certain hysteria about paedophila in the media. He agrees that sex with juveniles is harmful. He's right that there is a spectrum of behaviour regarding paedophilia, with some being more harmful than others (and he does not condone any of it)

The rest is the analysis of the reporter:
"did not appear to..." - was he asked outright? What did he say?



I would too. In a conversation about the age of consent, incest would not be the first thing to spring to mind.



And keeping in mind his early statement that sex with juveniles would be harmful (and thus acceptance of the wisdom of an age of consent) I don't see what is wrong with this statement.

Norris i'm not so sure about, it seems he's a little bit too lefty for liking, also some of his views on sex are a little strange (though isn't everyone's i suppose).

http://sites.google.com/site.../norrisarticle/

also he backed cathal o'searcaigh ! ...saying it was motivated by homophobia.

he has no outstanding experience in economic/financial situations,he'seloquent,speaks his mind ...
he also claimed that the
leaders of the 1916 rising were terrorists .:rolleyes:


afaik Has to get at least twenty serving members of the Oireachtas to vote for him ????

lynski

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In a country that has been rocked by homosexual sex scandals I cannot actually see him getting the Labour nomination. The anti-norris campaign would be very strong and outspoken and the electorate does listen to them (Remember Lisbon/Nice). If FG run a good candidate he/she will win by a landslide.

What homosexual sex scandals?? the RCC priests raping children is pedophilia and has NOTHING to do with hetero or homo sexuality, much as many so-called christians would have us believe.
I have read most of the posts here and i am curious, is that a verified article from magill? because it seems a text doc on a google site. It does not seem to be a full article at all and I would not put a lot of credence in it to be honest.
There will be a lot of air given to these nuts, but if this society is to achieve equality for all our citizens, regardless of gender, economic status, ability, sexual orientation, age, country or race of origin, we need to move forward. two female presidents were a wonder, and a fantastic start. Our president need to represent the diversity in our society and our freedom from the shackles of the RCC and the past.
An openly homosexual president would send a message that we are breaking with the old guard in this country once and for all.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Morlar

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

davidnorris4president.com was registered 23rd Oct this year through GoDaddy. All the Registrants contact details on the domain are anonymous email addresses and hiding behind Domains by Proxy and a c/o address there :rolleyes

What is the purpose of publishing this persons name and home address on an internet forum ?

Bodhisopha

Einhard wrote: »

It's not that Fry wrote a play about an inappropriate relationship. I'd have no problem with that. I do have a problem though with the way in which he portrayed this relationship between a man and a child, as a positive thing.

Wasn't he involved in such a relationship himself when he was under the age of consent? He views his own experience as maybe not positive, but certainly not negative iirc.

Nodin

Morlar wrote: »

What is the purpose of publishing this persons name and home address on an internet forum ?

Its already in the public domain.

Copper23

Snakeblood wrote: »

Has anyone called you a homophobe yet? Has anything like that happened?

It really gets on my tits when people go on about how OH THE PC BRIGADE WILL GET ON ME FOR THIS, when they haven't, and they really generally don't give a crap about you unless you start actually interrupting someone else's quality of life with ill thought out racist\homophobic garbage. So shut it until they do. Vote for whoever you want. I won't be voting for him for my own reasons.

Well, isnt it the whole basis for this thread that the OP started?

- Church don't support his bid due to his lifestyle. (is it that surprising?)
- Everyone gets down on the church again for being stuck in the middle ages, etc, etc...
- AH members start posting that they'll vote him in just to spite some article they read on the internet.
- Implication now made that a vote against Norris is now somehow due to some sort of prodigiousness.

thebullkf

lynski wrote: »

What homosexual sex scandals?? the RCC priests raping children is pedophilia and has NOTHING to do with hetero or homo sexuality, much as many so-called christians would have us believe.
I have read most of the posts here and i am curious, is that a verified article from magill? because it seems a text doc on a google site. It does not seem to be a full article at all and I would not put a lot of credence in it to be honest.
There will be a lot of air given to these nuts, but if this society is to achieve equality for all our citizens, regardless of gender, economic status, ability, sexual orientation, age, country or race of origin, we need to move forward. two female presidents were a wonder, and a fantastic start. Our president need to represent the diversity in our society and our freedom from the shackles of the RCC and the past.
An openly homosexual president would send a message that we are breaking with the old guard in this country once and for all.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

should he be black?, polish? unemployed?

why quote scripture if you want "freedom" from the church?

confused?

prinz

lynski wrote: »

An openly homosexual president would send a message that we are breaking with the old guard in this country once and for all.

Electing someone on the basis of their homosexuality is about as useful as electing some on the basis of being heterosexual.

As for the President representing a break with the RCC, one of our first was a Protestant.