Pride Debate - civil marriage vs. civil partnerships

[Universal_001]

The less that devides people who are gay from the rest of society, the more these activists talk about the remaining division.

That might have something to do with the fact that they are now less likely to have their heads stoved in, or be arrested, or rejected by their families for vocalising their demands. Which, in turn, has a lot to do with a few decades of courageous activism by people who are now deservedly being recognised by the gay community.

Do you suppose, RO, that the gay community should cease all activism, or do you just think it should scale down every time a concession is made by the government, or societal attitudes improve incrementally?

Theres a diffrence between advocating civil rights and this total crap of LGBTQ, coupled with the "treat us the equally by giving us alternative events" crap, I mean is used to just be LGB how many ************************************g letters are we going to add on to it? are we supposed to say "Hi I'm Mark Johnson, LGBTQ"

Why is there a pride festival if they don't wish to be treated differently ?

Because people like a good piss-up.

It used to be a "hey you dont' like it? well we'll rub it in your face untill your so used to it your bored with it" thing, now it's just an excuse for a mass pissup, I don't think they should do it anymore, but it's a glorified piss up at this stage anyway.

[returning officer]

The less that devides people who are gay from the rest of society, the more these activists talk about the remaining division.
That might have something to do with the fact that they are now less likely to have their heads stoved in, or be arrested, or rejected by their families for vocalising their demands.

Since 1993 certain male homosexual were decriminalised, since 1999 it has been unlawful to disciminate in employment on the grounds of sexulity (bar cases were religious ethos trumps iy), since 2000 it has been unalwful to discriminate in provsions of services, since 2006(?) force majeure leave is provided on the same basis as hetrosexuals and in 2008/2009 the State will recognise same-sex relationships. The war is over.

Which, in turn, has a lot to do with a few decades of courageous activism by people who are now deservedly being recognised by the gay community.

As I outlined above, the idea of the gay community is a myth. Most of the above reforms were brought in under the government of that great gay rights advocate - Bertie Ahern. Will get the recognition he deserves?

Do you suppose, RO, that the gay community should cease all activism, or do you just think it should scale down every time a concession is made by the government, or societal attitudes improve incrementally?

Yes. They are an unrepresentative minority stuck with a victim mentality who do considerable damage to the perception of gay people as shreiking whingers, making demands which cannot be met and generally annoying the vast majority of people, who, whether one likes it or not privatlely hold the views expressed by Milton, by rubbing their noses in matters which they would prefer not to know about. Sexuality is a private matter and other than their choice of sexual/emotioanl partner, gay people are just like everybody else. The only people who disagree with that - are bigots and hacks.

[Zendik]

Theres a diffrence between advocating civil rights and this total crap of LGBTQ, coupled with the "treat us the equally by giving us alternative events" crap, I mean is used to just be LGB how many ********* ********* letters are we going to add on to it? are we supposed to say "Hi I'm Mark Johnson, LGBTQ"

Oh God - you again. Nobody is asking to be given "alternative events". People organise alternative events themselves, largely with the aim of obtaining equality. Also, what the hell is an "alternative event"? Alternative to what? If a group of new Irish were to organise a parade to celebrate, say, African culture, inluding some message of equal opportunities and anti-racism, would that be an "alternative event"? Or is it just the gays who shouldn't go around making a fuss?

Since 1993 certain male homosexual were decriminalised, since 1999 it has been unlawful to disciminate in employment on the grounds of sexulity (bar cases were religious ethos trumps iy), since 2000 it has been unalwful to discriminate in provsions of services, since 2006(?) force majeure leave is provided on the same basis as hetrosexuals and in 2008/2009 the State will recognise same-sex relationships. The war is over.

You think so? I'm sure there were people saying the "war" was over in '93, again in '99, 2000 and 2006. The "war" will not be over until equality is obtained and prejudice is eradicated. We are not allowed to marry, we can be summarily fired from jobs in almost every school in the country. Homphobia is rife in homes, schools and churches. The war is not over.

As I outlined above, the idea of the gay community is a myth. Most of the above reforms were brought in under the government of that great gay rights advocate - Bertie Ahern. Will get the recognition he deserves?

You cannot be serious. Almost every one of these reforms were forced upon the government, or brought in to narrowly preempt being forced, by Europe, because of the efforts of courageous memebrs of the gay community.

Yes. They are an unrepresentative minority stuck with a victim mentality who do considerable damage to the perception of gay people as shreiking whingers, making demands which cannot be met and generally annoying the vast majority of people, who, whether one likes it or not privatlely hold the views expressed by Milton, by rubbing their noses in matters which they would prefer not to know about. Sexuality is a private matter and other than their choice of sexual/emotioanl partner, gay people are just like everybody else. The only people who disagree with that - are bigots and hacks.

Gay people are just like everybody else, except for the fact that a number of legal rights are witheld from them, and they face irrational prejudice in many aspects of their lives. Accusing gay people of supporting a "victim mentality", and "annoying people" is like saying axactly that about black civil rights activists in the America of the 1960s. That you blithely opine that Milton is representative of the average, as though that were an immutable fact of life that must simply be accepted, demonstrates that you are a long way from understanding what Pride is about. There is only one explanation of which I can think for you begrudging of the gay rights movement, and innocent little flamboyances like Pride marches, and that is that you'd rather gay people just go away. Homophobia, in other words. Quiet, non-violent, meek, banal, commonplace homophobia, but homophobia nonetheless.

[returning officer]

We are not allowed to marry, we can be summarily fired from jobs in almost every school in the country. Homphobia is rife in homes, schools and churches. The war is not over.

Returning Officer wrote:
As I outlined above, the idea of the gay community is a myth. Most of the above reforms were brought in under the government of that great gay rights advocate - Bertie Ahern. Will he get the recognition he deserves?
You cannot be serious. Almost every one of these reforms were forced upon the government, or brought in to narrowly preempt being forced, by Europe, because of the efforts of courageous memebrs of the gay community.

Returning Officer wrote:
Yes. They are an unrepresentative minority stuck with a victim mentality who do considerable damage to the perception of gay people as shreiking whingers, making demands which cannot be met and generally annoying the vast majority of people, who, whether one likes it or not privatlely hold the views expressed by Milton, by rubbing their noses in matters which they would prefer not to know about. Sexuality is a private matter and other than their choice of sexual/emotioanl partner, gay people are just like everybody else. The only people who disagree with that - are bigots and hacks.

Gay people are just like everybody else, except for the fact that a number of legal rights are witheld from them, and they face irrational prejudice in many aspects of their lives. Accusing gay people of supporting a "victim mentality", and "annoying people" is like saying axactly that about black civil rights activists in the America of the 1960s. That you blithely opine that Milton is representative of the average, as though that were an immutable fact of life that must simply be accepted, demonstrates that you are a long way from understanding what Pride is about. There is only one explanation of which I can think for you begrudging of the gay rights movement, and innocent little flamboyances like Pride marches, and that is that you'd rather gay people just go away. Homophobia, in other words. Quiet, non-violent, meek, banal, commonplace homophobia, but homophobia nonetheless.

1) Homophobia/irrational prejudice going to be countered by accentuating difference.
2) No teacher has ever been fired for being gay. This has nothing to do with gay rights but union rights.
3) Your analysis of these reforms as being foisted upon by Europe is factually incorrect. eg outlawing dsicrimination in provision of goods and services has here since 2000, it only came into effect in the UK last year. Bertie should be considered as the most pro-gay Toaiseach ever - obviously he isn't because it suits both him and the gay activists.
4) Gay people cannot go away, they are everywhere. They are normal people. Normal people do need government-grant-scroungers holding a parade in their honour every year.
5) I do not accuse gay people of supporting "victim mentality" or being "annoying" I am referring explicity to well-funded gay activist organisiations.
6) The legal rights which are withheld from gay people - once state recognition of same-sex relationships come in - are minimal. That is all the State can do.
7) Bigots like Milton are unfortunate but as you state above, homophobia remains rife in society but is less expressed than before. Gay activists might wish to consult a PR company, if they think a 3 week Pride festival is going to do anything to change his views.
8) Accusing me of being homophobic for protesting that a flamboyant minority do not represent me and should not recieve government funding has the same standing as accusing Milton of being a closet case - it is lame at best.

[Universal_001]

Oh God - you again. Nobody is asking to be given "alternative events".

Yes me again, an equal ( ) poster just like you, just as entitled to speak as you.
In fact the LGBT at my college (or is it LGBTQRFTUVWXYG now? ) were constantly whinging to the ents officer about not enough alternative events, the only good idea for one they had was the alternative debs, the rest was just gay replicas of other events.

People organise alternative events themselves, largely with the aim of obtaining equality.

Take a look at that quote and you will see how ridiculous that sounds.
Woudln't ...going to standard run of the mill events with everyone else be a good way to obtain equality in it's social sense?

Also, what the hell is an "alternative event"? Alternative to what?

Bars
Rugby Clubs
(insert any event/place/thing here) and they're either demanding it or already have it organized themselves.

If a group of new Irish were to organise a parade to celebrate, say, African culture, inluding some message of equal opportunities and anti-racism, would that be an "alternative event"? Or is it just the gays who shouldn't go around making a fuss?

Yes it would be, but the diffrence with African cultural events is that's to their own culture, if you want a parallell with what many in the gay rights movement are at now look at black only bars, that white people are welcome in, as long as they don't act white.

You think so? I'm sure there were people saying the "war" was over in '93, again in '99, 2000 and 2006. The "war" will not be over until equality is obtained and prejudice is eradicated. We are not allowed to marry, we can be summarily fired from jobs in almost every school in the country. Homphobia is rife in homes, schools and churches. The war is not over.

Social discrimination is not going to vanish by a strategy of separating gay people in every walk of life socially and pretending that because you have a different sexuality that means you have a diffrent culture. If someone does not know a gay person they are more easily taken in by charactuers and steriotypes and they are not going to know someone if they're in a diffrent bar, a diffrent sports club etc etc

There is only one explanation of which I can think for you begrudging of the gay rights movement, and innocent little flamboyances like Pride marches, and that is that you'd rather gay people just go away. Homophobia, in other words. Quiet, non-violent, meek, banal, commonplace homophobia, but homophobia nonetheless

...again with the "if you dont' agree with my exact approach" your a homophobe

8) Accusing me of being homophobic for protesting that a flamboyant minority do not represent me and should not recieve government funding has the same standing as accusing Milton of being a closet case - it is lame at best.

Oh no no no please tel me they don't get govt funding? everytime I buy a bottle of Lucozade I'm funding them??

[odie1kanobe]

Who is "they"? Fewer than 10,000 attend any Pride event. I think most accept that there is a multiple of that number of gay people in the country.
Pride participants represent only themseleves.

I hope that they do not get government/council funding for this charade/power gathering/monet making racket/piss up.

My use of the word "They" is the organisers and other hangers on who put together this event.

[NeilW]

Who is "they"? Fewer than 10,000 attend any Pride event. I think most accept that there is a multiple of that number of gay people in the country.
Pride participants represent only themseleves.

I hope that they do not get government/council funding for this charade/power gathering/monet making racket/piss up.

My use of the word "They" is the organisers and other hangers on who put together this event.

It doesnt extend to the many people who attend and enjoy the events then?

[politicalnewbie]

As a gay person I must say i'm disheartened by some of the coments posted by users on this thread

Firstly i actually agree with RO in a certain sense, i mean the idea of creating a "seperate bu equal" community doesn't wash with me either but saying that... it has evolved seperatly because it is viewed as seperate... the creating of gay rugby teams and the like isn't to create a seperated community but to create a safe space for people to engage in all aspects of a average society... sports are on of the most homophobic institutions in the world i mean the director of the football association in Italy said homosexuals shouldn't /aren't in football(in italy)

Secondly as to my first comment "alternative (insert anything in here)" we created in the same ideology as before... the creation of a safe space that ACTUALLY allows freedom of expression (gender or sexuality)

I don't agree with pride it really is an excuse to drink(moreso than usual) .. if it were actually based on a theme that had a purpose like a march to the dail where 5000+ people would be screaming "equal rights NOW" or whatever i'd agree with it... it's more like a zoo tho IMO

I HATE the name... i've heard that groups in america have called it LGBT QSA (Queer Straight Allies) ... but not what it represents... the history of the community is amazing i would encourage RO to read it,watch it and possible live it :mrgreen: the idea of a community forming under laws that made it illegal and the persecution that each member faced is a true testoment to the human spirit and human resolve

Now Bertie Ahern is one of the most fantastic advocates for LGBT (yes i went there as it is now the recognised term fot the community) rights in Ireland and he should and will be remembered for it for years to come

Now back to the substantive of the Topic

Civil Marriage would would guarantee rights... a referendum would not be needed as it wouldn't be taking rights away but enlarging the scope of who can marry... but as an alternative if marriage cannot be seperated from religion how about changing the scope that the state grants marriage.. meaning how about the state granting Unions to everyone and marriage done in a church... that way the constitution wouldn'tbe affected for heterosexuals as they could still get "married but the legal basis under the state would be a union and then homosexuals could get a union and then there would be no inequality in that sence as the state would grant the same name to both groups and religion would still have that special place that it does

[Milton Fine]

Nothing to be afraid of guys

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/18weddings.html?hp

Go California!

....I'm sure Milton will join me in wishing the lovely couple welll



I wonder if they remained chaste so that their wedding night would be special

Society, and specifically children, need to be protected from the spectre of that happening in Ireland.

They are an abomination...mildly amusing and stereotypical but amusing nonetheless.

Fair play to your man for the gunshow though despite the obvious steroid abuse.

It is not "ok to be gay" and marriage for homosexuals should never ever be permitted. It will be a rocky road to liberisation in other areas of deviancy such as zoophilia, necrophilia and paedophilia.

This isn't about me...it's about children and protecting their innocence.

I mean, for Christs sake, I heard a thing on the radio talking about rights for transexuals! Feckin trannies...I mean, I ask you. If homosexuals are deviants trannies are super-deviants. Banning LGBT groups would be progressive and democratic, and is a policy I shall be advocating at the next PD conference. Children's rights supercede those of a deluded minority of homosexuals.

[Universal_001]

Firstly i actually agree with RO in a certain sense, i mean the idea of creating a "seperate bu equal" community doesn't wash with me either but saying that... it has evolved seperatly because it is viewed as seperate...

Thats of course true historically, my point is that to end discrimination in peoples minds for good we should be going the opposate direction and integrating with the rest of society, when you go to work nobody suggests a seperate workplace for gay people, why should it be diffrent for any other area of life?

Secondly as to my first comment "alternative (insert anything in here)" we created in the same ideology as before... the creation of a safe space that ACTUALLY allows freedom of expression (gender or sexuality)

Theres clearly cases where said integration is more dangerous a proposition than others, like the rugby example, but if we don't do it just out of fear were always going to be looked on as diffrent.

.. if it were actually based on a theme that had a purpose like a march to the dail where 5000+ people would be screaming "equal rights NOW" or whatever i'd agree with it... it's more like a zoo tho IMO

Wasn't the first reason for social acceptance rather than a civil rights thing?
I'd 100% back any civil rights march, I'd also argue that there should be demonstrations for civil rights in a few areas not just gay rights, and they should combine their strength.