Being Gay: Not in my Name

norrie rugger

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.

So you are against contraceptive?
What about a couple where one of them is infertile, should they not have sex as it is a sterile act?

Corkfeen

Drunkenmonkey,I'm not making him look like a homophobe, I couldn't care less if he's in favour or against. He simply has to say if he is for or against, or say his position has not changed in the matter. I'm straight by the way and gay majority or not, does that mean they're not entitled to the same rights as everybody else ? (No that doesn't mean that I think the country is full of homophobes)

In terms of it being an attack on the good people of Ireland, nope it's an attack on a taoiseach who is showing himself to be more and more incompetent. Between refusing to answer questions on certain topics while happily voicing his stance on the ESM (which I was and still am in favour of btw) And other referenda. And him claiming that journalists are bullying him. The last few months are not reflecting well upon his ability to deal with the electorate or press.

smash

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.

But gay means happy...

Duggys Housemate

toexpress wrote: »

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

The point about gay marriage - which I agree with but dont see as a major pressing concern - is for liberal straights to flaunt their impeccable liberal credentials. It's not wholly, or even majorly, about the gay community.

Corkfeen

Curse those liberals! Seriously, what is wrong with a straight person who thinks that people deserve the same rights, no matter what orientation. While not every gay person may want to get married (not to say there isn't a lot) that does not mean that the option should not always be open to them as it is to every straight person.

norrie rugger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The point about gay marriage - which I agree with but dont see as a major pressing concern - is for liberal straights to flaunt their impeccable liberal credentials. It's not wholly, or even majorly, about the gay community.

So just because there are other issues with the country we should ignore inequalities?
What about the Children's Rights referendum? should we stop calling for this also? Should we ignore the horrible influence that the catholic church has in our schooling?

Not everything is about money. The country may run on money but a country IS its people and those people deserve the same rights across the population.
The moment that you deny rights to one person, you deny them to me too.


Edit* Oh and to those of you that do not say that this is not a big deal for you, what about the people that it is important to? Just because you are not in a position to want to marry, you do not care that it is denied to others?

Duggys Housemate

norrie rugger wrote: »

So just because there are other issues with the country we should ignore inequalities?
What about the Children's Rights referendum? should we stop calling for this also? Should we ignore the horrible influence that the catholic church has in our schooling?

Not everything is about money. The country may run on money but a country IS its people and those people deserve the same rights across the population.

There are gay people on this thread who don't care, the OP was one. There is civil partnership. Any legislation takes time, involves political rows and discussions, and debates; and if there are more pressing issues then they should take priority for a while. If the Dail needed time to draft legislation to get a better deal than it how has for the bank bailout, then it should take that time.

Duggys Housemate

norrie rugger wrote: »

Edit* Oh and to those of you that do not say that this is not a big deal for you, what about the people that it is important to? Just because you are not in a position to want to marry, you do not care that it is denied to others?

This is, as I suspected, a holier than thou response. Its about you feeling morally superior - the whole guff about being discriminated against yourself, for instance.

I believe in legalising gay marriage, and legalising polygamy, as the state should not get involved in marriage besides recognising the contract if consensually gotten into.

But if there are other more pressing issues to address, address them.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

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?

It doesn't matter a rats ass because hes an opposition TD, was not running for election and was not in Government.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

It doesn't matter a rats ass because hes an opposition TD, was not running for election and was not in Government.

Ah right so just good old double standards then... and here was me thinking the electorate had a right to know so they could vote for x politican or not.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79703061&postcount=88

"Not if he's a politician.." or wait no, that doesn't apply to opposition TD's......who are politicians. Make your mind up dear.

Duggys Housemate

Nodin wrote: »

It doesn't matter a rats ass because hes an opposition TD, was not running for election and was not in Government.

Ok, so Edna probably feels a bit hostile to Gay Marriage but is not going to whip the party to his position, or speak on the subject. So nothing so see here and seekers of Crime Think should move on.

norrie rugger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There are gay people on this thread who don't care, the OP was one. There is civil partnership. Any legislation takes time, involves political rows and discussions, and debates; and if there are more pressing issues then they should take priority for a while. If the Dail needed time to draft legislation to get a better deal than it how has for the bank bailout, then it should take that time.

That is not what he said. He said "I am bitterly disappointed with my sexuality being used on a daily basis in politics."
Unfortunately it IS a political issue, as the constitution/law would need changing.

The government can not abandon debate about human rights issues just because there are pressing economic issues. Also if they find that they are so short of time, let them curtail their summer recess?
They are not sitting for several weeks, in which this could be debated.

Nodin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Ok, so Edna probably feels a bit hostile to Gay Marriage but is not going to whip the party to his position, or speak on the subject. ...........

If he won't speak on the subject, it begs the question of why, and whether or not he will use his position to block it.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Ah right so just good old double standards then... and here was me thinking the electorate had a right to know so they could vote for x politican or not.

Was he up for election? No. Was he in a position to block the referendum? No. Did he eventually come out with a position - yes.

I wouldn't worry though. Odds are it will be put to a referendum, get passed, and you can go back to writing letters about whatever TV show is causing you moral outrage at the moment.

norrie rugger

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is, as I suspected, a holier than thou response. Its about you feeling morally superior - the whole guff about being discriminated against yourself, for instance.

I believe in legalising gay marriage, and legalising polygamy, as the state should not get involved in marriage besides recognising the contract if consensually gotten into.

But if there are other more pressing issues to address, address them.

Holier than thou? "Equal rights" is exactly that, equal. They affect the entire population. There is nothing morally superior in that. I love that you tar me with that brush while saying that there are more pressing issues to address. More pressing for you maybe but what about people that do want to get married, have kids and have the same rights as everyone else?

Oh wait that is right, the country is in a recession so let us ignore human rights. What next? should we abolish unions, social healthcare, free education? I mean as long as they do not affect you and would contribute to the economics of the country, who cares what rights are eroded

Corkfeen

Also both current and previous governments tend to sideline things long-term when they sideline them. The X case has been ongoing for twenty years now.

Nodin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This is, as I suspected, a holier than thou response. Its about you feeling morally superior -.......

Theres only one person round here feeling "superior" at the moment, and its not him or me.....

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Was he up for election? No. Was he in a position to block the referendum? No. Did he eventually come out with a position - yes..

Let's try this one more time..

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?

LOL. Maybe you forgot to add in your terms and conditions there.

Nodin wrote: »

I wouldn't worry though. Odds are it will be put to a referendum, get passed....

I do believe I said the very same thing so why are you telling me what I already know?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Let's try this one more time..



LOL. Maybe you forgot to add in your terms and conditions there.

He was asked repeatedly. He refused to answer. They still asked him.

You want them to stop asking.

norrie rugger

prinz/nodin are you guys arguing about the same thing here?
Do you both think that a politician should have to publically declare their positions?

prinz

norrie rugger wrote: »

prinz/nodin are you guys arguing about the same thing here?
Do you both think that a politician should have to publically declare their positions?

I don't think they should have to (if they want to then that's their choice), as individuals.. especailly not when it comes to referenda.

Parties yes, as in the party recommends this or that. Nodin thought if politicians didn't democracy would flounder if a politician didn't...... and then quickly changed that tune when it didn't suit.

The Gnome

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I hate gnomes :mad:

ಠ_ಠ

That's it, you're going on the list.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

I don't think they should have to (if they want to then that's their choice), as individuals.. especailly not when it comes to referenda.

Parties yes, as in the party recommends this or that. Nodin thought if politicians didn't democracy would flounder if a politician didn't...... and then quickly changed that tune when it didn't suit.

I changed no tune.

norrie rugger

Parties are made up of individuals, however, and as the primary decision maker Enda does have a resbonsibility.
Also, if there are two running mates, I would want to know each of their personal belief structures before deciding which one to vote for, as it is the people that we elect that determine the views of the party. There are many people that would have supported Enda, in the run for party leader and during the split, that may not have had they known his thoughts on this matter. The party/Enda will be deciding on if/when we have a referendum.
Enda is playing the politician game of not answering and hoping the matter goes away, that is not leadership and is causing damage to his party.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

I changed no tune.

Right so when you mentioned politicans earlier in the thread, what you really meant was a minority subset of politicians. I'll believe you.

If your TD is in opposition then you have no automatic right to know their position on things and can't make up your mind who to vote for or not. I see.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Right so when you mentioned politicans earlier in the thread, what you really meant was a minority subset of politicians. I'll believe you.
If your TD is in opposition then you have no automatic right to know their position on things and can't make up your mind who to vote for or not. I see.

You seem all worked up. My position is perfectly clear. Ross was repeatedly asked and he refused to give an answer. You want people to stop asking.

kunst nugget

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The point about gay marriage - which I agree with but dont see as a major pressing concern - is for liberal straights to flaunt their impeccable liberal credentials. It's not wholly, or even majorly, about the gay community.

So wait, if I say I believe that a gay couple should be entitled to all the same rights and entitlements as a straight couple, I'm doing it merely to flaunt liberal credentials? That is a load of horse manure…

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

You seem all worked up. My position is perfectly clear. Ross was repeatedly asked and he refused to give an answer. You want people to stop asking.

Ah right so you got caught out and you need to try and make comments like that to reassert yourself, good lad.

I think people should stop drawing conclusions which funnily enough all seem to go the one way, I wonder why that is.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Ah right so you got caught out and you need to try and make comments like that to reassert yourself, good lad.

............

Keep thinking that. It'll keep you cosy at night. It'll still be wrong, but you're used to that.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Keep thinking that. It'll keep you cosy at night. It'll still be wrong, but you're used to that.

...and I'm the one getting worked up, am I? :pac:

norrie rugger

Lads lads, remember that there are other issues to deal with here. Such as being morally superior and holier than thou

Funglegunk

You gay brah?

norrie rugger

Funglegunk wrote: »

You gay brah?

Which poster are you asking?

prinz

Funglegunk wrote: »

You gay brah?

I got that Friday feeling.

Canard

Was Enda Kenny not one of the people for the law to make priests break the seal of confession? If he was he doesn't really have a leg to stand on with keeping his opinions private.

Funglegunk

norrie rugger wrote: »

Which poster are you asking?

No one in particular.

prinz wrote: »

I got that Friday feeling.

Me too.

prinz

Patchy~ wrote: »

Was Enda Kenny not one of the people for the law to make priests break the seal of confession? If he was he doesn't really have a leg to stand on with keeping his opinions private.

What does his opinion on gay marriage have to do with reporting information on child abuse to the relevant authorities? The 'breaking the seal of confession' matter had nothing whatsoever to do with revealing private opinions to the general public.

norrie rugger

prinz wrote: »

What does his opinion on gay marriage have to do with reporting information on child abuse to the relevant authorities? The 'breaking the seal of confession' matter had nothing whatsoever to do with revealing private opinions to the general public.

Although I do kinda disagree with you on the wider issue of his right to keep this private, I agree wholeheartedly with the above