Being Gay: Not in my Name

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

I'd sooner politicians did what they thought was right than being beholden to a mob of angry gays .

Yeah, the gays are known for the angry mobs allright.

Actor wrote: »

who are all too quick to play the homophobe branding card. I'd say it's only a matter of time before they start playing on the Taoiseach's personal Catholic beliefs if they don't get what they want.
.

You mean the way he might force those beliefs on them by blocking gay marriage?

Actor wrote: »

Respecting the will of the majority is part and parcel of being a good citizen. That's not to say that you can't campaign/lobby for something you strongly believe in.

Funny, because earlier you were saying

He has every intention of acting according to his good conscience. His conscience is one aspect of his personality and political track-record and he should act according to that. It would be terrible if politicians were bullied into acting in way contrary to their reason.

In a Republic, there's supposed to be recognition of the rights of minorities and protection for them from the majority.

1ZRed

Actor wrote: »

If gays want respect and society to tolerate their behaviour, then they should at the very least, look inwards on themselves and show some respect for the beliefs of the vast majority of public office holders in this country.

Tolerate my behaviour? Why should society have to learn to tolerate me, I did nothing wrong and there is nothing wrong with my behaviour and what I do.

You want me to show respect as in, not be gay? Alright, no problem buddy!:D

chin_grin

What happens when I leave AH for a few hours.

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

In a Republic, there's supposed to be recognition of the rights of minorities and protection for them from the majority.

Polygamists are a minority. Do you respect their so-called "civil rights"?

Actor

1ZRed wrote: »

Tolerate my behaviour? Why should society have to learn to tolerate me, I did nothing wrong and there is nothing wrong with my behaviour and what I do.

You want me to show respect as in, not be gay? Alright, no problem buddy!:D

I disagree. And that goes for homosexuals as well as so-called "straight" people. You know very well what I mean.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

Polygamists are a minority. Do you respect their so-called "civil rights"?

They don't have any as a group as polygamy is illegal. However I've no provblem with consenting adults in any arrangements they may make with each other.

1ZRed

Actor wrote: »

Polygamists are a minority. Do you respect their so-called "civil rights"?

From my understanding, polygamy is illegal because it's hard to regulate it and hold the same laws over it.

That's very different to say, gay marriage which should be an equal entitlement to everyone. I love how you made that connection though, but in reality, gay people can be just as monogamous as straight people. I know!:eek:

Chucken

Actor wrote: »

Polygamists are a minority. Do you respect their so-called "civil rights"?

I do. The joy of being a good tolerant person.

dlofnep

Actor wrote: »

I disagree.

Who gives a fúck what you agree with?

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

They don't have any as a group as polygamy is illegal. However I've no provblem with consenting adults in any arrangements they may make with each other.

Polygamists don't have any rights eh?

Bit of an inconsistency in your reasoning there. Two loving, consensual adults, engaging in whatever sexual behaviour/love they wish to engage in... (repeat ad nauseum...)

Actor

dlofnep wrote: »

Who gives a fúck what you agree with?

Now. Now.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

Polygamists don't have any rights eh?..)

Because polygamy is illegal. I'm in favour of giving them rights by legalising it.

1ZRed

Actor wrote: »

I disagree. And that goes for homosexuals as well as so-called "straight" people. You know very well what I mean.

So in your eyes, nobody is going to be having sex because that's wrong?confused:

Call it a hunch but I think it's just a little bit important straight people reproduce

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

Because polygamy is illegal. I'm in favour of giving them rights by legalising it.

And what about polygamists "marrying"?

Chucken

1ZRed wrote: »

So in your eyes, nobody is going to be having sex because that's wrong?confused:

Call it a hunch but I think it's just a little bit important straight people reproduce

Nope








:pac:

1ZRed

Actor wrote: »

Polygamists don't have any rights eh?

Bit of an inconsistency in your reasoning there. Two loving, consensual adults, engaging in whatever sexual behaviour/love they wish to engage in... (repeat ad nauseum...)

Mono- means one

Bi- means two

Poly- means multiple

A pretty consistent train of thought if you ask me.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

And what about polygamists "marrying"?

Thats what I was referring to......You can't legally be a polygamist unless you're married to more than one woman, polyandrist if you're not married to more than one man.

Chucken

Actor wrote: »

And what about polygamists "marrying"?

What about it???

Is it really any skin off your nose?

Actor

1ZRed wrote: »

So in your eyes, nobody is going to be having sex because that's wrong?confused:

Call it a hunch but I think it's just a little bit important straight people reproduce

I was referring to (obviously) that other type of "sex". There's nothing sexual about a sterile act that just so happens to use the sexual organs.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

I was referring to (obviously) that other type of "sex". There's nothing sexual about a sterile act that just so happens to use the sexual organs.

You'd be wrong there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity

Chucken

Actor wrote: »

I was referring to (obviously) that other type of "sex". There's nothing sexual about a sterile act that just so happens to use the sexual organs.

Oh...for the fun of it you mean??

Ya thats great craic too

prinz

Actor wrote: »

I'd sooner politicians did what they thought was right than being beholden to a mob of angry gays who are all too quick to play the homophobe branding card. I'd say it's only a matter of time before they start playing on the Taoiseach's personal Catholic beliefs if they don't get what they want. Disgusting tactics if you ask me. Mob-rule State how are you.

If there is going to be a referendum on the issue, which seems likely, every citizen has the right to vote however they wish, and to keep that vote secret if they so wish, including Kenny. The witch-hunt to try and force him, or indeed anyone, to give their own personal opinion is pig ignorant if they choose/wish to keep that information to themselves. Whether it's gay marriage or anything else. We don't live in a dictatorship so one man's personal opinion/vote (ie Kenny) is irrelevant until such time as he chooses to reveal it.

Actor

Nodin wrote: »

You'd be wrong there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_activity

What part of the article would you like to reference?

Here's one from dictionary.com for you:

sexual
"having sexual organs or reproducing by processes involving both sexes."

Sex is not sex unless there's a reproductive element. There's a very good word for everything else. I'll give you a clue - it begins with f.

Pedant

Actor wrote: »

Enda Kenny, a practising Catholic, is not going to be bullied by a bunch of left-wing cranks who one day are all for homosexual "civil rights"

Oh yes, just because LGBT people are looking for their rights they are cranks. And there's nothing "left-wing" about minorities looking civil rights. Maybe you'd see the Suffragettes or the black civil rights activists in a similar light; mere left-wing cranks. Are you born "left-wing"?

Actor wrote: »

and the next day are out knocking and ridiculing ordinary Catholics over sex abuse.

So you're assuming here that all LGBT people go out and ridicule Catholics over Church sex-abuse scandals. Right so, all gay people? There are many many many practicing gay Catholics out there who'd be offended by your remarks.

Actor wrote: »

If gays want respect and society to tolerate their behaviour, then they should at the very least, look inwards on themselves and show some respect for the beliefs of the vast majority of public office holders in this country.

What "behaviour"? Are you assuming that all gay people behave the same just because they're gay? Do all Irish people act the same? Do all straight people act the same? What do you mean "look inwards on themselves"? Do you think that all gay people hold some unanimous political and religious opinion? Gay people are varied in their political and religious opinions as straight people are. Respect ought to be granted on an individual basis and on individual merit. You can't just judge an entire group of people just because they were born a certain way.

And by the way, who are you to say what views and beliefs the "vast majority of public office holders" have? Those in public office should represent the opinion of the people who voted for them. Do you think just because a majority of people in the Dáil are Catholics that they are against marriage equality? Who are you to speak for them?

Just because you're a Catholic doesn't automatically mean you conform to all Catholic doctrine. Recent polls show that around 70% of the Irish public support marriage equality, yet 85% of the Irish public are Catholic. Clearly, there's a major contradiction here in identifying as a Catholic and adhering to established Catholic doctrine.

How do you think the Dáil would vote on a hypothetical bill to ban contraception? Would you think the Dáil would vote in favour of it just because a majority of the people in the Dáil are Catholics and Catholic doctrine clearly forbids the use of contraception? How do you think the people would vote on such a bill in a referendum? Would you think that the majority would vote in favour of it because 85% of the Irish public are Catholics?

Clearly, in this day and age, you cannot interpret a politician's opinion, or indeed the public's opinion, solely by what faith they ascribe to.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

If there is going to be a referendum on the issue, which seems likely, every citizen has the right to vote however they wish, and to keep that vote secret if they so wish, including Kenny. The witch-hunt to try and force him, or indeed anyone, to give their own personal opinion is pig ignorant if they choose/wish to keep that information to themselves. Whether it's gay marriage or anything else.

It's perfectly valid to find out his view, given that his office means he has the power to frustrate the issue.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

What part of the..........it begins with f.

Perhaps thats how it was thought of back in whatever century people gave a crap what the church thought, however you'll find no backing for it today, scientific or otherwise.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

It's perfectly valid to find out his view, given that his office means he has the power to frustrate the issue.

Has he tried to frustrate it? Asking him his view is one thing. A constant barrage of questions trying to back him into a corner with insinuations of being a homophobe etc is not on. Maybe the public members of the convention on the constitution should be forced to make their votes public too.

1ZRed

Actor wrote: »

I was referring to (obviously) that other type of "sex".
There's nothing sexual about a sterile act that just so happens to use the sexual organs.

Oh man you'd be very mistaken. You see men have a prostate that's located in their rectum, and if the prostate is stimulated by anal sex or otherwise it can creat a huge amount of sexual pleasure, even to the point of climax.

Now that's just for guys. For woman, anal sex can also be pleasurable and sexual because the nerves of the vaginal wall can be stimulated as well.

And let's not forget that the anus it's self have more nerve endings than the clitoris or glans so for both sexes, anal sex or stimulation can be highly sexual.

And what if you were to engage in a more conventional sexual activity like vaginal sex between a man and a woman BUT using a condom or another means of contraception. That's sterile sex so does that mean its no longer sexual?

Canard

Going to start off by saying that I'm 17 so I'm not too clued in on politics or who the politicians are or what they're for/against, but I want to reply to some things.

Actor wrote: »

He has every intention of acting according to his good conscience. His conscience is one aspect of his personality and political track-record and he should act according to that. It would be terrible if politicians were bullied into acting in way contrary to their reason.

Enda Kenny, a practising Catholic, is not going to be bullied by a bunch of left-wing cranks who one day are all for homosexual "civil rights", and the next day are out knocking and ridiculing ordinary Catholics over sex abuse. If gays want respect and society to tolerate their behaviour, then they should at the very least, look inwards on themselves and show some respect for the beliefs of the vast majority of public office holders in this country.

Surely the beliefs of the majority of people comes before the majority of politicians? Maybe it's happened already or maybe there's some reason it can't happen but I really don't understand why there doesn't seem to have been an out and out vote on "Should gay marriage be legal or not" - I'm honestly hard-pressed to find anyone I know who is actively against it.

I don't give a damn what their personal opinions are. Ireland is pretty much secular or no one cares much for religion with the scandals and the trend of writing Jedi on the census, so any reason for opposing homosexuality is either religious or just plain bigotry. There is absolutely no reason to be against it and while I respect people's personal views and their right to hold them, I think it's disgusting that it can influence other people's lives.

Actor wrote: »

I'd sooner politicians did what they thought was right than being beholden to a mob of angry gays who are all too quick to play the homophobe branding card. I'd say it's only a matter of time before they start playing on the Taoiseach's personal Catholic beliefs if they don't get what they want. Disgusting tactics if you ask me. Mob-rule State how are you.

Respecting the will of the majority is part and parcel of being a good citizen. That's not to say that you can't campaign/lobby for something you strongly believe in.

Your "mob of angry gays" is a little ridiculing or something, you could just as easily call the other side "a hoard of homophobic bigots" or bible bashers. How can you blame the "angry gays" when their rights are being withheld with no firm grounds? Here's a little play on his apparent Catholic beliefs - why is he not trying to have divorce rebanned if he cares so much for religion and the sanctity of marriage? I assume it's just plain homophobia.

Chucken

Actor wrote: »

Sex is not sex unless there's a reproductive element. There's a very good word for everything else. I'll give you a clue - it begins with f.

So that would mean that a woman who has passed joyfully through the menopause should sleep in the spare room??

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Has he tried to frustrate it? .

He might, hence the pertinence.

prinz wrote: »

Asking him his view is one thing. A constant barrage of questions trying to back him into a corner with insinuations of being a homophobe etc is not on.
.

Do you think the poor dear is too sensitive for a few questions?

prinz

Patchy~ wrote: »

...while I respect people's personal views and their right to hold them, I think it's disgusting that it can influence other people's lives..

Every time you vote, from a general election to a referendum on Europe you could be playing a part in influencing other people's lives to some degree.

..but good eloquent post all the same. No need to mention your age, you seem well capable of expressing yourself.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

He might, hence the pertinence.

OK, so every politician should be forced to make their votes public? Surely any of them could be in a position to frustrate something.

Nodin wrote: »

Do you think the poor dear is too sensitive for a few questions?

LOL typical Nodin. Either he has the right to keep his vote to himself or he doesn't. The attempts I have seen to portray his silence as meaning he is a homophobe etc is immature nonsense. If I want to keep my vote to myself that's my business. Same for you. Every citizen should have that right, including Kenny, and no amount of petty insults should change that.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

OK, so every politician should be forced to make their votes public? Surely any of them could be in a position to frustrate something..

His opinion.

prinz wrote: »

LOL typical Nodin. Either he has the right to keep his vote to himself or he doesn't. The attempts I have seen to portray his silence as meaning he is a homophobe etc is immature nonsense. If I want to keep my vote to myself that's my business. Same for you. Every citizen should have that right, including Kenny, and no amount of petty insults should change that.

So no TD should be asked their opinion on a European referendum, the child protection act, Dail committees?

Canard

prinz wrote: »

Every time you vote, from a general election to a referendum on Europe you could be playing a part in influencing other people's lives to some degree.

..but good eloquent post all the same. No need to mention your age, you seem well capable of expressing yourself.

Thank you Just wanted to make sure people didn't assume I'm 18 or over in case my understanding of politics was all wrong hahaha.

I realize that but from what I understand there's never been a proper vote on gay rights - I think the majority should be listened to in a country, and the lack of rights for gay people is such a negative influence that it really shouldn't be so up in the air in my opinion.

On the topic of opinions, I do think that politicians should have to reveal their opinions if not their voting preferences. If I was voting for Enda Kenny and I found out he was against gay rights, I'd quickly be changing that vote!

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

His opinion.

His opinion once again is irrelevant if he chooses to keep it to himself.

Nodin wrote: »

So no TD should be asked their opinion on a European referendum, the child protection act, Dail committees?

Ask away, but drawing conclusions on silence is utterly stupid... and repeating the question ad nauseum is similarly stupid. If a TD remains silent on which way they'd vote in a Child Protection referendum I think it would be ridiculous to conclude that such a TD is a child hater etc.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

His opinion once again is irrelevant if he chooses to keep it to himself..

Not if he's a politician. How the fuck is a democracy supposed to be run if you can't ask a politician what their view is?

prinz

Patchy~ wrote: »

Thank you Just wanted to make sure people didn't assume I'm 18 or over in case my understanding of politics was all wrong hahaha.

Not at all. You've already risen above plenty of posters on this site who I assume would be well older in my estimation.:pac:

Patchy~ wrote: »

I realize that but from what I understand there's never been a proper vote on gay rights - I think the majority should be listened to in a country, and the lack of rights for gay people is such a negative influence that it really shouldn't be so up in the air in my opinion..

I am pretty sure there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment in the not too distant future paving the way for the Dail to deal with gay marriage.

Patchy~ wrote: »

On the topic of opinions, I do think that politicians should have to reveal their opinions if not their voting preferences. If I was voting for Enda Kenny and I found out he was against gay rights, I'd quickly be changing that vote!

What else should they have to reveal? Should they have to announce whether they are vegetarian? Should they have to reveal religious affiliations? Again you can ask, but I don't think the situation as I have seen it in places where by staying silent Kenny is portrayed as a bigot etc shows anyone in a good light.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

What else should they have to reveal? Should they have to announce whether they are vegetarian? Should they have to reveal religious affiliations? Again you can ask, but I don't think the situation as I have seen it in places where by staying silent Kenny is portrayed as a bigot etc shows anyone in a good light.

And again - How the fuck is a democracy supposed to be run if you can't ask a politician what their view is?

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Not if he's a politician. How the fuck is a democracy supposed to be run if you can't ask a politician what their view is?

Yes democracy itself would collapse if Kenny refused to clarify his favourite colour. What is important is what the parties back and support or not, and campaign for or not, but individuals no, not always necessary. Like I have said repeatedly, ask away, but respect an individuals right not to answer. When it comes to a referendum everyone should be entitled to their vote and their privacy if they so choose.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes democracy itself would collapse if Kenny refused to clarify his favourite colour..

Evading the point.

prinz wrote: »

What is important is what the parties back and support or not, and campaign for or not, but individuals no, not always necessary...

Nobody said it was always nessecary. Nobody gives a crap what he eats, drinks or anything along those lines. However when it comes to matters he can influence its very important.

Canard

prinz wrote: »

Not at all. You've already risen above plenty of posters on this site who I assume would be well older in my estimation.:pac:

Why thank you :pac:

prinz wrote: »

I am pretty sure there will be a vote on a constitutional amendment in the not too distant future paving the way for the Dail to deal with gay marriage.

Hopefully!

prinz wrote: »

What else should they have to reveal? Should they have to announce whether they are vegetarian? Should they have to reveal religious affiliations? Again you can ask, but I don't think the situation as I have seen it in places where by staying silent Kenny is portrayed as a bigot etc shows anyone in a good light.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't want to say they're vegetarian or religious, unless they think it's going to make them look bad - and his silence has certainly made him look bad, but not as bad as admitting to homophobia would make him look. In my experience people tend not to voice unpopular opinions because they can't back them up. A politician should be well able to express all of their views with valid reasons for having them, not just "I think gays are icky" or something, you know?

It does reflect badly that people (including myself, I have to admit) are assuming he's a bigot but I just don't see any other conclusion. I'm not sure if it's comparable but if someone is asked if they stole something or did something bad, and they don't answer, the assumption is that they did it - so I would say the assumption that he's anti-gay marriage is correct. He's perfectly entitled to be against it but if he is, he can't pretend he isn't because he thinks it'll get him a few more votes, and I definitely don't think his position of power should allow him any more influence on the matter than any other citizen.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Evading the point. Nobody said it was always nessecary. Nobody gives a crap what he eats, drinks or anything along those lines. However when it comes to matters he can influence its very important.

No, I am not evading the point. It reminds of Shane Ross who went a long time refusing to make public his position on the European Fiscal Treaty (eventually he did) but did democracy stop? Would it have been majorly crippled if he hadn't made his position public knowledge?

Corkfeen

prinz wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

Not if he's a politician. How the fuck is a democracy supposed to be run if you can't ask a politician what their view is?

Yes democracy itself would collapse if Kenny refused to clarify his favourite colour. What is important is what the parties back and support or not, and campaign for or not, but individuals no, not always necessary. Like I have said repeatedly, ask away, but respect an individuals right not to answer. When it comes to a referendum everyone should be entitled to their vote and their privacy if they so choose.

We're asking for his opinion on something that will go to a referendum eventually. If the country wants to know how he stands on the issue, he should respond. He is entitled to be opposed to it if he wishes but either way the public is equally entitled to know. He is fearful of losing the support of certain voter demographics in the future so is unwilling to respond. It doesn't really reflect well upon him as a politician. He was perfectly willing to voice his opinion on previous referendum topics.

prinz

Corkfeen wrote: »

We're asking for his opinion on something that will go to a referendum eventually. If the country wants to know how he stands on the issue, he should respond. He is entitled to be opposed to it if he wishes but either way the public is equally entitled to know. He is fearful of losing the support of certain voter demographics in the future so is unwilling to respond. It doesn't really reflect well upon him as a politician. He was perfectly willing to voice his opinion on previous referendum topics.

As above when Shane Ross (and others) went weeks refusing to give their opinion re the way they'd vote of the Fiscal Treaty... the campaign to read into their silence, or indeed claim democracy would be unworkable unless they announced it just wasn't there.

drunkmonkey

Corkfeen wrote: »

We're asking for his opinion on something that will go to a referendum eventually. If the country wants to know how he stands on the issue, he should respond. He is entitled to be opposed to it if he wishes but either way the public is equally entitled to know. He is fearful of losing the support of certain voter demographics in the future so is unwilling to respond. It doesn't really reflect well upon him as a politician. He was perfectly willing to voice his opinion on previous referendum topics.

Your trying to make him look like a homophobe and bigot at every turn and it just looks nasty his opinion may be more widespread than you think, every attack on Enda is an attack on a good lot of people in the country. He's not afraid of loosing any votes. There is no gay majority that can influence any election.
Enda made his view clear in the last general election. I presume it still remains the same. Why does it need to be repeated?

Daith

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your trying to make him look like a homophobe and bigot at every turn and it just looks nasty his opinion may be more widespread than you think, every attack on Enda is an attack on a good lot of people in the country. He's not afraid of loosing any votes. There is no gay majority that can influence any election.
Enda made his view clear in the last general election. I presume it still remains the same. Why does it need to be repeated?

Like his view that property shouldn't be taxed has changed maybe his view on equal rights for same sex couples has changed?

norrie rugger

Actor wrote: »

I disagree. And that goes for homosexuals as well as so-called "straight" people. You know very well what I mean.

I don't have a frikken clue what you mean

BunShopVoyeur

PC CDROM wrote: »

As a person who is comfortable with being sexually attracted to men I have to say I am bitterly disappointed with my sexuality being used on a daily basis in politics.

For shame.

For shame on you all.

Don't be so hysterical.

*slap*

toexpress

Speaking as someone else who is gay and comfortable with their sexuality to be totally honest I couldn't give a continental about the issue of gay marriage just now.

It's really not that big of a deal when you consider everything else that is going on in the country. We don't have enough Gardai, we don't have enough resources for the Gardai, our nurses and doctors are stretched to the limit, we have nearly half a million people unemployed with no prospects of that changing any time soon and the list goes on. Frankly I don't see the big issue with gay marriage there are bigger issues that we should be focused on