Pride Debate - civil marriage vs. civil partnerships

[Zendik]

When Barack Obama was critical of some black people for saying that "a black youth with a book is acting white", was he displaying "internalized racism"?

Not even internalised. But I'm sure he was joking. Actual internalised racism is less common than internalised homophobia, for obvious reasons.

Different attitudes do not mean inferior ones.

No. Yours just happen to be inferior.

what is going on there is at best an excuse for a piss up, and at worst just a flamboyant pointless attention seeking exercise, one I believe does more harm than good because of the image it portrays.

So you keep saying. I very much see the point in Pride, as do thousands of others. The only harm I can possibly imagine done by Pride is to embarrass people like you, and that doesn't bother me very much. The image it portrays is that of a very real part of the gay community. It just so happens that it's the most organised and colourful part. You believe it should be hidden - I think that would be the worst possible thing to do. Attention seeking is, I suppose, a conscious part of Pride - though attention seeking isn't exactly how I would put it. Visibility and celebration of diversity. Gay people have survived for millennia by being invisible. We have some making up to do.

Would you answer this?:

What are these artificially invented differences?

I don't believe there is any need for a "gay community" any more than there is for a "blond community".

If blond people were regularly rejected by their families, bullied and discriminated against, there would very much be a need for a blond community. If blond people were historically persecuted and reviled, and they tended to be born into families that persecuted and reviled blonds, there would be a need. If blond people could pretend not to be blond, and live unhappy lives as non-blonds, there would be a need. And if blond people could only have sex and romance with other blond people, there would be a need for a blond community.

Just one or two little problems with your analogy there.

I think separate bars and sports clubs are a barrier, you don't see African Americans asking where the "colored bar" is.

It's simple statistics, Universal. If you're gay, and you want to go out and score, you have a lot better chance when everyone else in the club is gay. This fact and this fact alone means there will always be a need for gay clubs - unless something really very fundamental changes. Add to this homophobia, which I don't hear you denying is still a problem, and the need doubles. Add to this the fact that there is, indeed, a gay culture (just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist), and, well, I'm sure you get my point.

And yes, black people do have black clubs - even here in Dublin. There are Czech clubs as well. There are also goth clubs. And there are gay clubs. Back to this double standard I've mentioned. One doesn't need an excuse to have a bar for a particular kind of person. Gay people just happen to have a large number of reasons.

But we need to face the question of the court judgments that say if you call it a marriage we need a referendum, what the implications are for a majority vote on minority rights.

Saying the occasional smart thing doesn't make up for the rest of your nonsense.

[Bobb]

Attention seeking is, I suppose, a conscious part of Pride - though attention seeking isn't exactly how I would put it. Visibility and celebration of diversity. Gay people have survived for millennia by being invisible. We have some making up to do.

Does Zendik support similar parades for paedophiles?

[NotDevsSon]

Attention seeking is, I suppose, a conscious part of Pride - though attention seeking isn't exactly how I would put it. Visibility and celebration of diversity. Gay people have survived for millennia by being invisible. We have some making up to do.

Does Zendik support similar parades for paedophiles?

Typical of you to decide to throw in paedophiles into a discussion about gay rights.

The vast vast majority of paedophiles are not homosexual but heterosexual (most of them married with children). Homophobes seem to have some bizarre notion that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. They are not.

[Zendik]

Attention seeking is, I suppose, a conscious part of Pride - though attention seeking isn't exactly how I would put it. Visibility and celebration of diversity. Gay people have survived for millennia by being invisible. We have some making up to do.

Does Zendik support similar parades for paedophiles?

Typical of you to decide to throw in paedophiles into a discussion about gay rights.

The vast vast majority of paedophiles are not homosexual but heterosexual (most of them married with children). Homophobes seem to have some bizarre notion that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. They are not.

Must you quote him? Politics.ie is so much less irritating with him on ignore. I highly recommend it. It's not as though he's even funny anymore.

[politicalnewbie]

Different attitudes do not mean inferior ones. I would not describe a pride parade as a public display of gayness, "gayness" is two members of the same gender having sex, and being attracted to each other, so unless they're going live sex shows at pride events now, what is going on there is at best an excuse for a piss up, and at worst just a flamboyant pointless attention seeking exercise, one I believe does more harm than good because of the image it portrays.

I don't believe there is any need for a "gay community" any more than there is for a "blond community".

Well the idea of a gay community is the same as a sci-fi community or a muslim community.. a group of people with similar interests grouping together to share conversations/relationships(yes i went there)/stories/memories/ etc

Also big difference between being blonde and being gay... just to point out

This is what gay activism is all about. Keep creating rows/disunity. Separation. A good row leads to interest and that leads to funding - either private or state. The criticims levelled against the Poverty Industry can be multiplied for these NGOs.

Many gay goups did fight a very difficult and courageous battle to have the law changed in 1993, 1998 and 2000. David Norris obviously stands out above all others. But the law has now changed. I cannot be sacked from my job because I am gay - either due to legislation to my trade union policy. Any gay man can book into any hotel in the State without fear when they ask for a double-bed with another male. No service/supplier can discriminate against me- bar a few other protected groups ie religious to mainatain their ethos (used successfully by 6 CoI schools against the Dept of Education).

The last big battle is state recognition for same-sex couples. That is in the programe for government. Its form will have to be seen. It need not make any reference to Adoption - why should it? Marriage/civil partnership is recognition by the State of a relationship between two adults, who make a commitment to each which cannot dissolved by anything but a Court after 4 years. Let the issue of the right to make a joint application to be considered for an adoption bill, produced after the Children's right referendum has passed.

They can now and are deeply imbeded enough to be secure.

Except your mis representing the truth ... no boss will ever turn around and say i'm firing you because your gay... they'll turn around and say were letting you go based on blah blah blah.... it is a criminal act but there are a million ond one ways aound it ...

What about the blood ban ... I can completely see the relevance for protecting our blood supply and frankly the best way would be a ban on everyone who has had sex in the past year... but since that in feesible they'll just ban the gays... even tho the are less than 2000000 gay people infected with the disease in the world while 40 million heterosexuals have the disease... but of course it's just the gays and the druggies they're bad so we as perfect straight people don't engage in high risk behaviour... it's a santimonious ban

You say the last big battle is the marriage campaigh... what about adoption or gender recognition? Or indeed ending religions state sanctioned biggotry?

[Chris_Short]

I'd sure love to see a referendum on Gay marriage. Unless the turnout was in low single figures it wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Really? I would not be so sure of that:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022307.html.

[Bobb]

Typical of you to decide to throw in paedophiles into a discussion about gay rights.

The vast vast majority of paedophiles are not homosexual but heterosexual (most of them married with children). Homophobes seem to have some bizarre notion that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. They are not

If you believe that gays should be allowed to promote their community in a pride parade in our capital then surely you must feel the same rights should apply to other sexual minorities?

[stewiegriffin]

I'd sure love to see a referendum on Gay marriage. Unless the turnout was in low single figures it wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Really? I would not be so sure of that:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022307.html.

Didnt we just have one?

[Zendik]

I'd sure love to see a referendum on Gay marriage. Unless the turnout was in low single figures it wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Really? I would not be so sure of that:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022307.html.

Didnt we just have one?

They come around every few months. And the figures steadily improve.

Not that it should matter. The public have no business voting on a matter like this - as my good friend Universal_001 has said.

[Bobb]

Really? I would not be so sure of that:http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022307.html.

Most people when telephoned by a complete stranger and asked loaded questions will answer in a way they consider politically correct