Gay Rights

Dudess

metrovelvet wrote:

Also I know the ENTIRE staff of a very prominant mens fashion magazine are entirely gay men, I wont name it here, but if you want me to tell you, pm mw, and the sexual harasssment is rife once you start working in gay friendly industries.
This pressure is saturated also in the film, theatre, and arts industry. So the culture makes it next to impossible for a gay man to be completely faithful.
Oddly, its probably easier to be faithful if you work in an industry thats more "straight" like finance.

Oh, come ON!!! I've worked in various "straight" environments - offices, shops, a radio station and a newspaper. What they all have in common is sexual politics, sexual harassment (not always blatant, but it's there in subtle guises) and people having affairs (the offices were the worst). One of these workplaces employed a large number of gay men and they were the least predatory of all the people in that particular company.

metrovelvet

I know that they are allowed and I know that they do work in other industries, but there are some industries which have far more gay men then others, like theatre, the arts, hollywood, even advertising and journalism.

Well if you ever visit San Fran or NYC or gay holiday resorts you might change your mind.

I get the feeling you hang out with out of the closet middle class Dubs who have names like Ferdia and say yaw a lot. [You mentioned a lot of student unions].

Whereas I take dance classes with camp black men who say things like "girl, get down with your bad self!" And then look in the mirror while dancing and rub their hands up and down themselves, followed by some vogueing and then some pelvic movements to hip hop songs about shaking your ass. And socially I drink with gay journalists who are the ones who are telling me this stuff.

Dudess I dont disbelieve you. But you have no reason to disbelieve me either.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

I know that they are allowed and I know that they do work in other industries, but there are some industries which have far more gay men then others, like theatre, the arts, hollywood, even advertising and journalism.

Well if you ever visit San Fran or NYC or gay holiday resorts you might change your mind.

Because San Francisco, NYC, and gay holiday resorts (never really saw the point) define gay people, right?

metrovelvet wrote:

I get the feeling you hang out with out of the closet middle class Dubs who have names like Ferdia and say yaw a lot. [You mentioned a lot of student unions].

Well, aren't you good at assuming

metrovelvet wrote:

Whereas I take dance classes with camp black men who say things like "girl, get down with your bad self!" And then look in the mirror while dancing and rub their hands up and down themselves, followed by some vogueing and then some pelvic movements to hip hop songs about shaking your ass. And socially I drink with gay journalists who are the ones who are telling me this stuff.

Dudess I dont disbelieve you. But you have no reason to disbelieve me either.

You are talking about a small niche-group, not gay people in general. The average gay person is... rather similar to the average straight person, really.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

This pressure is saturated also in the film, theatre, and arts industry. So the culture makes it next to impossible for a gay man to be completely faithful.

Oddly, its probably easier to be faithful if you work in an industry thats more "straight" like finance.

Pure undiluted horsemanure.

I work in film and television and there is no "culture" for gay or straight people to be more unfaithful.

You are wandering further and further down a tangent that makes sense only to you.

metrovelvet

Are you in the tiny tiny puddle that is the Irish Film/tv industry? Can you even call it an industry?

I could say the same to you, rsynnot that you are talking about a small niche group.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Are you in the tiny tiny puddle that is the Irish Film/tv industry? Can you even call it an industry?

I could say the same to you, rsynnot that you are talking about a small niche group.

That small niche group being the general population? I know lots of gay people, aged from 17/18 to 50 or so, from all walks of life. None of them really behave like your definition of a gay person...

metrovelvet

But they are all Irish?

I too know lots of gay men from all walks of life, ages, nationalities, and many of them do.

I also know a couple of horrifying examples in Ireland.

Theres no point in pretending it doesnt exist.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Are you in the tiny tiny puddle that is the Irish Film/tv industry? Can you even call it an industry?

I could say the same to you, rsynnot that you are talking about a small niche group.

Irish US and Uk industries........

And never have I experienced this culture you are refering to.

And what on earth does this have to do with why gay men shouldn't be allowed adopt?

metrovelvet

I dont know how thats possible unless you're working in crew.

Because we were talking about how certain cultures/industries behing the scenes make it incredibly difficult for gay men to be monogamous. Much in the same way it was near impossible for women to escape sexual harrassment.

BTW - I think its quite sick that angelina jolie and these celebrities can adopt children like they are the latest handbag.

Dudess

metrovelvet wrote:

we were talking about how certain cultures/industries behing the scenes make it incredibly difficult for gay men to be monogamous. Much in the same way it was near impossible for women to escape sexual harrassment.

But if such cultures of sexual harassment exist, why do they only make it difficult for gay men to be monogamous? By your logic, environments in which sexual harassment occurs against heterosexual males and females would make it difficult for them to be monogamous, yet you don't appear to be saying that.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

I dont know how thats possible unless you're working in crew.

Slow hand clap. Yes I am.

Because we were talking about how certain cultures/industries behing the scenes make it incredibly difficult for gay men to be monogamous. Much in the same way it was near impossible for women to escape sexual harrassment.

Thats just simply untrue, if someone is going to be unfaithful they'll be unfaithful be they a magazine editor, a makeup artist or an accountant.

Theres no evidence that a gay couple wanting to adopt would be more likely to be unfaithful to each other.

BTW - I think its quite sick that angelina jolie and these celebrities can adopt children like they are the latest handbag.

Wow, can you name another celebrity who adopts?

Or better yet tell us what on earth that has to do with the matter at hand?

DublinWriter

This really is a no-brainer. You might as well ask should homosexuals have the right to breath oxygen.

We need at least a legal option of 'Civil Union' in this country to confer people with the minimum amount of inheritence rights as enjoyed by married folk.

I'm all in favour of full-blown civil gay-marriage, but I couldn't see any party getting support for it in the hinterland (i.e. outside Dublin), so they'll always steer clear of the issue.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Because we were talking about how certain cultures/industries behing the scenes make it incredibly difficult for gay men to be monogamous. Much in the same way it was near impossible for women to escape sexual harrassment.

I don't quite understand this. Say I move to NY, enter a long-term relationship and get a job in the entertainment industries (rather improbable, as I'm incredibly ugly, but let's suspend disbelief for a minute). How does that environment make it incredibly difficult for me to be monogamous.

Now, let's assume that like the vast majority of gay men in Ireland, I have an ordinary job; maybe I'm a civil servant or something. How does THAT make it difficult for me to be monogamous.

Your gay men sound to me to be rather similar to the gay men one sees on Sex and the City or similar; not real people. Maybe that's the way it is in New York, though I'm not inclined to believe it. It's not the way it is, generally, here.

metrovelvet wrote:

BTW - I think its quite sick that angelina jolie and these celebrities can adopt children like they are the latest handbag.

Indeed, but that is a flaw in the adoption board's practices. They should screen them better than they do.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

gay holiday resorts you might change your mind.

Groan :rolleyes:

And visiting Ibiza in the summer and wondering around the clubs at 3 in the morning is going to give you good idea of the family orientated child rearing nature of the average Irish or British heterosexual :rolleyes:

Do you actually know any gay men apart from young professional gay men living and working in urban centres (ie exactly the people who wouldn't be interested in adopting children at their point in life). Do you have any reason to believe they are any more or less interested in family and children than your average young straight men living and working in urban centres and big cities?

metrovelvet

rsynnott wrote:

I don't quite understand this. Say I move to NY, enter a long-term relationship and get a job in the entertainment industries (rather improbable, as I'm incredibly ugly, but let's suspend disbelief for a minute). How does that environment make it incredibly difficult for me to be monogamous..

Yes. I think this is right. First of all, you're not ugly. I saw your picture on some thread. You would be quite fanciable among gay men here. So you would be hit on all the time. Secondly, it is doubtful that your boyfriend would be all that intolerant of you screwing around. So theres permission. He might however be intolerant of you developing feelings for someone else.

Now, lets say you got a job in Details or GQ, or even FOX news, yes, you would have a hard time staying monogamous because of the sexual politics and well, simply opportunity.

rsynnott wrote:

Now, let's assume that like the vast majority of gay men in Ireland, I have an ordinary job; maybe I'm a civil servant or something. How does THAT make it difficult for me to be monogamous...

Ironically, it doesnt. It may just make it hard for you to be gay, but maybe not. I dont know, can you bring your boyfriend to government Christmas parties and snog under the mistletoe? [Here you can do that. You can hold hands. You can kiss on the street. No one cares, which may be part of why its hard to be monogamous]

But a civil service job wont make it hard for you to be monogamous. I would guess it would make it easy for anyone to be celibate. lol.

rsynnott wrote:

Your gay men sound to me to be rather similar to the gay men one sees on Sex and the City or similar; not real people. Maybe that's the way it is in New York, though I'm not inclined to believe it. It's not the way it is, generally, here....

Well there are certainly those types around, but there is a far greater variety too. And its getting harder and harder to tell the difference between gay and straight men. I see them walking down the street holding hands and I think if I hadnt seen that I would have thought he was gay. My gaydar has gone to ****. And why are all the hot men gay? Why?

First of all, I know a few Irish gay men. And I know some older queeny types. The younger ones,seem to me still lonely, despite whatever hookups and lifestyle they have. They also seem to be particularised into socializing in one pub, which has got to be just so irritating. But in general, it seems to be very very lonely there- in that your choices are limited and your affections are still relegated to the obscure.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Yes. I think this is right. First of all, you're not ugly. I saw your picture on some thread. You would be quite fanciable among gay men here. So you would be hit on all the time. Secondly, it is doubtful that your boyfriend would be all that intolerant of you screwing around. So theres permission. He might however be intolerant of you developing feelings for someone else.

Okay, first of all, if he was screwing around, I wouldn't be at all impressed. So I wouldn't do it to him, either. I'm generally only hit on by geriatrics, I'm afraid.

metrovelvet wrote:

Now, lets say you got a job in Details or GQ, or even FOX news, yes, you would have a hard time staying monogamous because of the sexual politics and well, simply opportunity.

I can afford to buy far too much food, and yet I am not a wobblebottom. Just because there is opportunity, and temptation, one may opt not to accept.

As an aside, they allow gay people in Fox news?! I always imagined it as being staffed by mentally subnormal rednecks

metrovelvet wrote:

Ironically, it doesnt. It may just make it hard for you to be gay, but maybe not. I dont know, can you bring your boyfriend to government Christmas parties and snog under the mistletoe? [Here you can do that. You can hold hands. You can kiss on the street. No one cares, which may be part of why its hard to be monogamous]

No, no, it wouldn't make it hard to be gay. Of course I could bring my boyfriend to government office Christmas parties. If the office tried to stop me, the Equality Tribunal would be down on them like a ton of bricks In any case, most educated people are moderately sensible about that sort of thing nowadays.

Now, no-one cares about heterosexuals kissing on the street, and yet they don't find it hard to be monogamous.

metrovelvet wrote:

But a civil service job wont make it hard for you to be monogamous. I would guess it would make it easy for anyone to be celibate. lol.

Well, I have news for you. Many gay people work as civil servants, and bus drivers, and lecturers, and construction workers, and bank workers, and so on.

metrovelvet wrote:

First of all, I know a few Irish gay men. And I know some older queeny types. The younger ones,seem to me still lonely, despite whatever hookups and lifestyle they have. They also seem to be particularised into socializing in one pub, which has got to be just so irritating. But in general, it seems to be very very lonely there- in that your choices are limited and your affections are still relegated to the obscure.

I don't think that's the case at all. Are these gay men you know out?

The_Minister

metrovelvet wrote:

Generally the policy on sex outside the main relationship is "never more than once with the same person and never in the house." Which in many ways is a policy I admire. I know couples who are together for years but they still **** around and cruise.

You've been watching queer as folk

metrovelvet

Yes there are plenty of gay men in Fox news, but im not sure if they are officially out. I do know of one presenter who is.

I never see gay men in dublin holding hands walking down the street the way I do in NYC.

Yeah, the ones I know are out of the closet. I would have said if they were in a glass closet. They are out.

Its the ones who are not out and who are still married but cruising the subways who are the real ****wits imo.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Yes there are plenty of gay men in Fox news, but im not sure if they are officially out. I do know of one presenter who is.

How... odd.

metrovelvet wrote:

I never see gay men in dublin holding hands walking down the street the way I do in NYC.

Nope, you won't, much. (I've done it myself, and kissed, but we were both quite drunk at the time). Hopefully that will change.

metrovelvet wrote:

Its the ones who are not out and who are still married but cruising the subways who are the real ****wits imo.

Unfortunately, some people do find it very difficult.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

You've been watching queer as folk

Firespinner how is any of the nonsense you were peddling a few weeks back about your "friends in the gays" who assure you the "do it" more any different from this claptrap?

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Yes. I think this is right. First of all, you're not ugly. I saw your picture on some thread. You would be quite fanciable among gay men here. So you would be hit on all the time. Secondly, it is doubtful that your boyfriend would be all that intolerant of you screwing around. So theres permission. He might however be intolerant of you developing feelings for someone else.

Wow, you got all that from a photograph? :rolleyes:

Now, lets say you got a job in Details or GQ, or even FOX news, yes, you would have a hard time staying monogamous because of the sexual politics and well, simply opportunity.

I'm sorry you are literally talking out of your ass. Theres no other way to put this, theres no polite debating style announcement. You are just talking crap.

Making lurid claims that gay men (in fox news :rolleyes: ) would be incapable of staying monogamous because of "sexual politics" is complete BS. I know people who work there (I avoid eye contact if I see them in the street) and have never heard such nonsense.

You can claim you have "contacts" who give you details of all this lurid gossip but I simply don't believe you, and don't see how this is in any way relevant to the topic at hand.

metrovelvet

Thats fine that you dont believe dont believe me. But I dont like how hostile you are coming across.

If you dont mind could you take it down a notch. Its not necessary to get that aggressive with me.

Annasopra

hmmm.....

I'm glad in ways this was moved moved to humanities because it shows that Irish society is not as tolerant and inclusive as some of us in the LGBT community would like and that there is still a lot of work to do - in educating against irrational fears and phobias and assumptions, in fighting for our civil and human rights, in fighting for the rights of our children to have legally recognised 2 parent families (whether some of you on here like it or not - gay parents exist), in fighting for equality.

I say tolerant and inclusive above because I respect that people have religious beliefs - however what I do not agree with is where those religious beliefs dictate state matters - ie; Civil Marriage for same sex couples

It also shows us that not all people will laugh at the Susan Philips of Irish Society

There are a few myths on this thread that some people put forward that need to demolished

1. Gay people are all paedophiles
This is not true and is just propoganda against the gay rights movement -

2. Gay people are all promiscuous
Again in my experience this is not necessarily true either and is just a stereotype based on one persons experience of San Fran/New York - sure there are promiscuous gay men but there are also lots of monogamous gay men in committed long term relationships

3. Gay people would warp/harm children if they reared them
See the studies above where this has been found in America to be complete nonsense

4. There is no very little anti gay hate crime in Ireland
Do some googling you will find reports over the last few years of such crimes - Wait 6 weeks for the Johnny Hate Crime Survey to come out and then please tell me again that there is no anti-gay hate crime in Dublin or better still ask Finbarr Murphy. There are no statistics on this for various reasons but that does mean it doesn't happen - In my opinion a lot of this type of crime goes unreported because people are afraid to report or will not report attacks as homophobic

5. Men can't look after children
Ah don't you just love the mysandry

6. All gay people are wealthy because we're not parents
A; Some of us are parents, B; Go read the following book and then tell me you can back that statement up; Poverty - Lesbians and Gay Men: The Economic and Social Effects of Discrimination - Published by the Combat Poverty Agency - Written by Eoin Collins of GLEN/Nexus

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Thats fine that you dont believe dont believe me. But I dont like how hostile you are coming across.

If you dont mind could you take it down a notch. Its not necessary to get that aggressive with me.

You are making frankly amazing claims based on rather narrow experience which seem to contradict consensus reality. If you are going to do so, please provide more evidence.

Freelancer

metrovelvet wrote:

Thats fine that you dont believe dont believe me. But I dont like how hostile you are coming across.

If you dont mind could you take it down a notch. Its not necessary to get that aggressive with me.

Come off it you come off spouting a plethora of misinformation about paedophilia and homosexuality and then homosexuals are inherently more likely to cheat on their partners. You're now reduced to repeatly lurid "gossip" about the sexual politics in the offices of GQ and Fox news.

I'll ask again what does any of your ramblings have to do with gay couples adopting? Or are you okay with gay couples adopting provided they don't work in "media"?

Seriously whats your point, or are you just some tedious gossipmonger?

The Corinthian

Johnnymcg wrote:

There are a few myths on this thread that some people put forward that need to demolished

I note that most of the ‘myths’ you’ve sited either have not actually been cited in this thread or you have exaggerated in your rebuttal (straw man argument).

1. Gay people are all paedophiles
This is not true and is just propoganda against the gay rights movement -

No they’re not. However we can say that the percentage of male paedophiles is much higher than it is for females. As such the percentage of a paedophile being present in a male-male relationship is going to be much higher than in a male-female (or for that matter female-female) relationship. Given this it is a valid consideration in the consideration of any social policy.

2. Gay people are all promiscuous
Again in my experience this is not necessarily true either and is just a stereotype based on one persons experience of San Fran/New York - sure there are promiscuous gay men but there are also lots of monogamous gay men in committed long term relationships

There are studies that would disagree with you. This is not to say that there are not lots of monogamous gay men, and women, in committed long term relationships, only that they have been shown in studies to be less likely to have stable relationships. Given this it is also a valid consideration in the consideration of any social policy.

Of course, I would be suspicious of any study specific to homosexuality, as it invariably seems to be backed by a group that will either be pro or anti homosexual. Indeed, the entire field of psychology increasingly is being hijacked by political (liberal and conservative) pressure groups so as to make it irrelevant.

3. Gay people would warp/harm children if they reared them
See the studies above where this has been found in America to be complete nonsense

As per my response to your second point.

4. There is no very little anti gay hate crime in Ireland
Do some googling you will find reports over the last few years of such crimes - Wait 6 weeks for the Johnny Hate Crime Survey to come out and then please tell me again that there is no anti-gay hate crime in Dublin or better still ask Finbarr Murphy. There are no statistics on this for various reasons but that does mean it doesn't happen - In my opinion a lot of this type of crime goes unreported because people are afraid to report or will not report attacks as homophobic

I don’t see the relevance to this discussion, unless you’re attempting to play the Israeli tactic.

The Israeli tactic, in case you’re confused, is whereby any criticism or the state of Israel is labelled as anti-Semitism. So, unless you’re about to suggest that any and all concerns relating to homosexual marriage and adoption are really down to homophobia, then your point is irrelevant.

5. Men can't look after children
Ah don't you just love the mysandry

I agree, but that’s not really an issue with homosexuality. Actually, you seem to be concentrating almost entirely on male homosexuals in your argument, with little or not interest in the issues surrounding female ones.

6. All gay people are wealthy because we're not parents
A; Some of us are parents, B; Go read the following book and then tell me you can back that statement up; Poverty - Lesbians and Gay Men: The Economic and Social Effects of Discrimination - Published by the Combat Poverty Agency - Written by Eoin Collins of GLEN/Nexus

I’ve never actually heard this ‘myth’ before. Actually, I really don’t understand what relevance this has to anything being discussed here.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

No they’re not. However we can say that the percentage of male paedophiles is much higher than it is for females. As such the percentage of a paedophile being present in a male-male relationship is going to be much higher than in a male-female (or for that matter female-female) relationship. Given this it is a valid consideration in the consideration of any social policy.

Indeed, on the same basis, only lesbians should be allowed adopt. Also, no-one with male relatives should be allowed to reproduce.

The Corinthian wrote:

There are studies that would disagree with you. This is not to say that there are not lots of monogamous gay men, and women, in committed long term relationships, only that they have been shown in studies to be less likely to have stable relationships. Given this it is also a valid consideration in the consideration of any social policy.

Of course, I would be suspicious of any study specific to homosexuality, as it invariably seems to be backed by a group that will either be pro or anti homosexual. Indeed, the entire field of psychology increasingly is being hijacked by political (liberal and conservative) pressure groups so as to make it irrelevant.

And beyond that psychological and sociological studies seem generally... not very good.

The Corinthian wrote:

I don’t see the relevance to this discussion, unless you’re attempting to play the Israeli tactic.

The Israeli tactic, in case you’re confused, is whereby any criticism or the state of Israel is labelled as anti-Semitism. So, unless you’re about to suggest that any and all concerns relating to homosexual marriage and adoption are really down to homophobia, then your point is irrelevant.

He was responding, I think, to something MUCH earlier on about homophobic attacks being a sufficiently high risk factor that same-sex couples should be banned for adopting on that basis alone.

The Corinthian wrote:

I agree, but that’s not really an issue with homosexuality. Actually, you seem to be concentrating almost entirely on male homosexuals in your argument, with little or not interest in the issues surrounding female ones.

Likely because nearly all of the argument has focussed on homophobic violence (usually against males) and paedophilia (almost always perpetrated by males). In addition, someone earlier was saying that a male can't be a good parent on their own but a female can.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve never actually heard this ‘myth’ before. Actually, I really don’t understand what relevance this has to anything being discussed here.

A reference to a strange claim made further back.

Annasopra

I note that most of the ‘myths’ you’ve sited either have not actually been cited in this thread

Are you reading the same thread as me

some of the points that I raised are not relevant to the thread but they were bought up by people other than me and I was answering them

(if you read back through the thread you will see discussions about hate crime, promiscuity, paedophilia, the welath of gay men - I didn't just pick some issues from the air that people were not discussing)

I concentrated mainly answering reagrding the issue of men because there were mysandrist suggestions that men should not rear children but women/lesbians were ok

In citing the issue as regards hate crime I was responding to suggestions that there was little or no homophobic crime

Again a lot of what I discussed wasn't relevant but I didn't introduce these topics into the conversation

No they’re not. However we can say that the percentage of male paedophiles is much higher than it is for females. As such the percentage of a paedophile being present in a male-male relationship is going to be much higher than in a male-female (or for that matter female-female) relationship. Given this it is a valid consideration in the consideration of any social policy

This actually really doesn't make sense to me - If a man is married to a woman and abuses a boy - is he gay?

metrovelvet

rsynnott wrote:

You are making frankly amazing claims based on rather narrow experience which seem to contradict consensus reality. If you are going to do so, please provide more evidence.

Right. They contradict the consenus reality of boards ie. I cant provide evidence for what I hear from gay men who are in the editorial positions of new york print/tv media. But its more than that, its having been friends with a man who lost his dad to aids while he was married and in the closet. Its being very very good friends with a man who contracted HIV from his gay partner. Its from having grown up in theater. So you can discredit my experience and my reality all you want but it doesnt change it.

So if I'm full of ****, where do you think I'm getting the **** from? Gay men.

freelancer, I dont like the way you are speaking to me, so until you change your aggressive and hostile tone I will be ignoring you.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Right. They contradict the consenus reality of boards ie. I cant provide evidence for what I hear from gay men who are in the editorial positions of new york print/tv media. But its more than that, its having been friends with a man who lost his dad to aids while he was married and in the closet. Its being very very good friends with a man who contracted HIV from his gay partner. Its from having grown up in theater. So you can discredit my experience and my reality all you want but it doesnt change it.

Is all that actually relevant, or just thrown in to add colour?