Homophobia and racism in Ireland

[pintsofguinness]

we've been through this on the board before and I've yet to hear one good reason why they shouldn't.
In fact every argument used would have been used against single parent families 20 years ago.

and what a wonderful addition to society that has been.
some day chart a graph for yourself marking the rise in crime and the rise in single parent families and add 2 and 2 together

Glad to see it's not just black people or gay people we're prejudiced towards.

[mylestheslasher]

we've been through this on the board before and I've yet to hear one good reason why they shouldn't.
In fact every argument used would have been used against single parent families 20 years ago.

and what a wonderful addition to society that has been.
some day chart a graph for yourself marking the rise in crime and the rise in single parent families and add 2 and 2 together

The price of diesel has been increasing of late too, is that related to the increase in crime? Just putting 2 & 2 together. leave statistics to someone who understands them if I were you.

[Puckoon]

we've been through this on the board before and I've yet to hear one good reason why they shouldn't.
In fact every argument used would have been used against single parent families 20 years ago.

and what a wonderful addition to society that has been.
some day chart a graph for yourself marking the rise in crime and the rise in single parent families and add 2 and 2 together

You twat.

Whats the view like up there from that high horse of yours?

[gallsman]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

[pintsofguinness]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

I said I didnt understand why people would be disappointed - you said about grandchildren and I accepted that (no doubt you and the other would just be as "disappointed" if you found your son or his wife couldn't have children) - If you come up with another reason why you'd be disappointed and I find it reasonable I'll accept that too.

[gallsman]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

I said I didnt understand why people would be disappointed - you said about grandchildren and I accepted that (no doubt you and the other would just be as "disappointed" if you found your son or his wife couldn't have children) - If you come up with another reason why you'd be disappointed and I find it reasonable I'll accept that too.

If, heaven forbid, you ever have kids, can you honestly say you wouldn't prefer them to be straight?

[pintsofguinness]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

I said I didnt understand why people would be disappointed - you said about grandchildren and I accepted that (no doubt you and the other would just be as "disappointed" if you found your son or his wife couldn't have children) - If you come up with another reason why you'd be disappointed and I find it reasonable I'll accept that too.

If, heaven forbid, you ever have kids, can you honestly say you wouldn't prefer them to be straight?

I would I think but not because of any problem I have, Id be worried about the prejudices he/she may face. 
As long as they were happy, worked hard and were a good person and their partner was the same I'd be happy enough. 

and why heaven forbid if i have kids? what's that mean?

[gallsman]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

I said I didnt understand why people would be disappointed - you said about grandchildren and I accepted that (no doubt you and the other would just be as "disappointed" if you found your son or his wife couldn't have children) - If you come up with another reason why you'd be disappointed and I find it reasonable I'll accept that too.

If, heaven forbid, you ever have kids, can you honestly say you wouldn't prefer them to be straight?

I would I think but not because of any problem I have, Id be worried about the prejudices he/she may face. 
As long as they were happy, worked hard and were a good person and their partner was the same I'd be happy enough. 

and why heaven forbid if i have kids? what's that mean?

Because you frequently mention on here how you have no desire for children. nothing to do with your somewhat sour disposition.

You've just said exactly what I was pointing out the whole time. I'd be disappointed if my child turned out gay, but not through any hatred for or dislike of homosexuality. I'd simply prefer them to be straight.

[pintsofguinness]

Not sure what you're asking me gallsman.

I'm pointing out that you asked what the problem was and when I gave you one you found acceptable you passed it off as "aye, but that's about the only one." Is there a pre-set benchmark of reasons before I'm allowed form my opinion?

I said I didnt understand why people would be disappointed - you said about grandchildren and I accepted that (no doubt you and the other would just be as "disappointed" if you found your son or his wife couldn't have children) - If you come up with another reason why you'd be disappointed and I find it reasonable I'll accept that too.

If, heaven forbid, you ever have kids, can you honestly say you wouldn't prefer them to be straight?

I would I think but not because of any problem I have, Id be worried about the prejudices he/she may face. 
As long as they were happy, worked hard and were a good person and their partner was the same I'd be happy enough. 

and why heaven forbid if i have kids? what's that mean?

Because you frequently mention on here how you have no desire for children. nothing to do with your somewhat sour disposition.

You've just said exactly what I was pointing out the whole time. I'd be disappointed if my child turned out gay, but not through any hatred for or dislike of homosexuality. I'd simply prefer them to be straight.

I never said I'd be disappointed, I wouldn't.  I may be worried about what he/she may have to live with and the only reason I may prefer them to be straight is that it may be an easier life when you don't have to face prejudices.  however if I did have kids, by the time they grow up none of this will be an issue, we hope.

[J70]

Major Irony here.

People come on and see its not ok to be anti anything or unsympathetic towards colours, religions, sexual orientation.

But in doing so you are anti conservative yourself.

Why can't conservatives be left alone to their opinions.  Conservatives have just as many rights as gay people or people who choose to get abortions or whatever the case may be.

There is discrimination in many shapes and forms.

By standing up against one you discriminate another...................

Thats life. Thats what the people say......................

That is a strange logic: someone opposing prejudice and bigotry is thereby prejudiced and bigoted themselves! Opposing and endorsing or consenting to prejudice are not morally equivalent positions.

Conservatives or whoever are entitled to their prejudices. They are not entitled to respect for those prejudices. In any decent society they are not entitled to have those prejudices enshrined in law or to expect any protection from the law for disciminating based on them.

The idea that homosexuality should be hidden or that it is acceptable to be disappointed if your child is gay or marries someone from another race is just ridiculous (Pints reasoning that he would fear for his children due to the ridiculous obstacles they might have to face is a fair exception). Why should a gay couple have to hide their affections while straight couples don't? If it makes you uncomfortable (not you specifically Iceman!), that's your problem, not theirs. Its like the ludicrous "don't ask don't tell" rule Obama is trying to have removed from the US military. Under it, you can join the military if you're gay, as long as you don't reveal your homosexuality while you're in there. Which means, while your colleagues are free to talk about their better halves and their kids, you, who may be spilling blood and putting your life on the line with these people, have to keep your mouth shut. All so any of your colleagues who are bigoted and prejudiced don't feel uncomfortable. Not good for morale, just like it wasn't good for morale to have mixed race regiments through WWII. Instead of telling these people to get a grip, you discriminate against the minority because it is easier to do than challenge prejudice.

Thankfully society is slowly growing up and the coming generations will leave these issues behind.

[rosnarun]

 

we've been through this on the board before and I've yet to hear one good reason why they shouldn't.
In fact every argument used would have been used against single parent families 20 years ago.

and what a wonderful addition to society that has been.
some day chart a graph for yourself marking the rise in crime and the rise in single parent families and add 2 and 2 together

The price of diesel has been increasing of late too, is that related to the increase in crime? Just putting 2 & 2 together. leave statistics to someone who understands them if I were you.

sure it has some effect , as does all inflation.
there are many shared characteristics in the criminal fraternity but one of the highest is that the individual are from broken and single parent households , you may choose to ignore this and prefer to think of these offender as being evil without reason. but Kids raised in this environment are put a a huge disadvantage for the rest of their lives .
Im was just curious how this was used as a positive in a debate on social structure?

[armaghniac]

How about nudists, should they be free to do their thing without prejudice? Are you a bigot if you are not happy with your son/daughter parading naked down Grafton st?

[J70]

How about nudists, should they be free to do their thing without prejudice? Are you a bigot if you are not happy with your son/daughter parading naked down Grafton st?

What's next on the list? Paedophiles?!! But that's an interesting question!

I would not think that a local cultural preference that clothing be worn in public is the same as discrimination or prejudice against someone on the basis of their sexuality or their race. Everyone must wear clothes on Grafton Street, just as everyone is required to obey the speed limit and pay their taxes. These are reasonable, modest expectations that Irish society expects everyone to meet. It isn't the case that one group is being singled out and told they must wear clothes while everyone else is free not to.

But then, someone might say, no one is requiring homosexuals to do anything that the rest of normal society won't do! Just like requiring nudists to wear clothes in public is not something we don't require everyone to do!

And, technically, on the surface, that is probably a fair point.

So the argument is whether society's refusal to allow nudists to disrobe on a public street is the equivalent of preventing homosexuals from pursuing relations with the same sex, and similarly, whether disapproval of the former is not bigotry or prejudice if disapproval of the latter is.

I guess societal values are dynamic. At different times, we have different standards for different things. Homosexuality was only decriminalized in Ireland in the past two decades. You could hardly get a condom until the mid-80s. The Aboriginal people were (in legal terms) part of the native fauna of Australia until the late 1960s. At various time, prejudice against homosexuals, aborigines, African Americans, Jews and many other groups have been part of respectable normal society in various places. Sooner or later, the majorities come to see (or are forced to see) that those prejudices are without basis or justification. I would certainly place homosexuality in that category. There is no justification for prejudice against someone based on their sexual preference (if you can present anything that does justify it, please go ahead), just as there isn't based on their race. You can certainly criticize some homosexual behavior such as, in some cases, promiscuity and the risks it carries, but that criticism can be leveled at many heterosexual males too and is a more a gender trait. And I don't see how the religious justification can stand. Make a defense of it if you wish, but the fact that it says so in Leviticus or wherever doesn't seem to be a very sturdy basis to me. So, if you are disappointed that your son or daughter turns out to be gay, beyond Pint's concerns about societal acceptance, I think the problem is you, not them. 

Which leaves the nudists! Are we discriminating against them? Well is there a feeling out there amongst the nudist community that we are? Are they looking to walk down Grafton Street? Do they feel that our decency laws reflect our bigoted intolerance of their lifestyle? Have they ever tested the laws? Personally, I haven't really given their plight much thought, beyond the fact that I would be completely in favour of allowing clothing optional beaches (with prominent warnings for the more modest!) and I couldn't care less what they do in  private. It wouldn't bother me either if sections of public parks were made clothing-optional either like in some places on the continent. Naked bodies don't seem to hurt children in those places, so I am sure as a society we'd adapt fairly quickly once past the initial novelty and thrills. But I honestly don't know if the requirement for clothing on Grafton Street reflects prejudice on our society's part. I don't think so, but I am not a lawyer or a philosopher and perhaps someone so qualified could make a case. Maybe there is a hurting, silent minority out there!

I probably haven't answered your question in this ramble, but I think basically that societies evolve, and its not a simple matter of saying that if objection to X is prejudice, then objection to Y and Z must be too. What is deemed normal and acceptable (or vice versa) today may not be fifty years down the line. But once the case is made against prejudice on a given issue (and none can be made for it), I don't see how any reasonable man, pride apart, could hold on to his views.

[Tyrones own]

Must be quare Peaceful and Serene in some of the households around here
what with some of the Holier than thou attitudes being lauded
Surrounded by Dalai Lama's by Jaysus

[pintsofguinness]

Must be quare Peaceful and Serene in some of the households around here
what with some of the Holier than thou attitudes being lauded
Surrounded by Dalai Lama's by Jaysus

What do you mean?
Its a sad world we live in if people assume there's something wrong with someone who isnt racist or a homophobic.