Brenda Power in the Sunday Times

Goodshape

So this is the sort of misguided opinion we're up against :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6637267.ece

Nasty article. Can't deny it raises a few worthwhile points though.

This is someone who has seen the media coverage of drag queens and over-the-top gays during the annual Pride celebrations, put two and two together and has came to conclusion that it's an accurate portrayal of the day to day life of the homosexual community (=5).

Brenda Power, Sunday Times wrote:

Homosexuals insist that their nature is an inherent, essential reality, and not a lifestyle choice. But if we were to judge by the get-up and carry-on of some of those in the Pride march last week, that’s hard to believe. Some are definitely choosing to pursue a way of life that is quite alien to the majority of married heterosexual parents in this country, indeed deliberately and defiantly so.

Brenda Power, Sunday Times wrote:

It’s a bit rich, though, to thumb your nose at traditional rituals and values and then demand that the most traditional of all — marriage — be reinvented and adapted just to suit you.

Now, on the one hand, Ms. Power seems to have lived quite a sheltered life if she thinks OTT celebrations are limited only to the gay community... ever been to a rave? Rio Carnival, anyone? (<-- Google Images link.. probably NOT safe for work!)... but I guess so long as it's not a couple of guys, or a couple of woman, then all is well?


On the other hand... I do think this highlights the need for a more balanced, more respectful, representative for the gay community when it comes to fighting for our rights. While I'm personally able to differentiate between a pride parade and a political discourse -- it seems there are many in the straight community who are not.

At the end of the day, making political points in drag is like turning up to a business meeting in full skater gear. It's never really going to work. So what else have we got? Is Miss Panti really the best we have in terms of community leadership? Is fun and games more important that a serious push for equal rights?


And before anyone has a go -- I recognise the importance of the pride celebrations for the gay community. It's the lack of any other form of representation that I see as the problem.

LegacyUser

Pride is more than a political statement. It's also a party/celebration, and just like in the St Pat's Parade, people dress up and have fun. The word "parade" should have been a clue Branda! It's an event for the gay community, more than it is for the wider community's benefit. And that's to ignore the fact that how a person dresses or expresses themselves should have no baring on what they have to say, or whether they should be afforded the same rights as anyone else.

You find a very different scene at gay rights political rallies. Indeed, at the last rally for civil marriage, Rory O'Neill (aka Panti) spoke - in a shirt and trousers! Would Brenda have listened to him then? Of course not because bigots like her don't listen. She's only interested when she can use silly side-swipes at how people dress at a parade to distract for her illinformed, ignorant opinions.

Iskenderun

I wonder if Brenda Power has ever been to a stag or hen party?
Same difference!

LookingFor

Most of the people at pride are pretty regular looking people.

The media always focusses on the more outrageous looking folks.

That's possibly the lens she was viewing pride through.

It's not fair to lump everyone in with those who choose - yes, choose - to express themselves very flamboyantly.

To blur the line between that kind of expression and homosexuality itself is very disingenuous and irresponsible, however.

I would say, also, that Dublin pride isn't nearly as bad as pride in other cities as far as outrageous expression goes. Some places, bedroom sexuality is brought right out onto the street for pride. So it could be worse. Dublin is not so bad. There's a healthy dose of 'respectability' at pride here too via the particpating political parties and a number of high profile politicians who attended.

I do think gay people have an image problem with certain people, though, like Power..but pride organisers can't really ask photogs and the like to take pictures of the 'ordinary' people if they insist on focussing on the handful of folks in drag or whatever. It's really also very unfair to suggest that because some small minority of gay people dress themselves in women's clothes that the notion of conservatism or 'trappings' of certain institutions like marriage should be witheld from them from in general. And if that were the case, there'd be many straight people locked out of such 'traditions' based on their behaviour too! I dunno..it smacks of knowingly exploiting an image a certain type of person out there has of gay people (i.e. those whose exposure to gay people is solely through that drag queen photo the Irish Times throws out every year the day after pride).

I also really dislike the point about "gay people have the same marriage rights everyone has. they can marry a member of the opposite sex just like the rest of us!". This point is ALWAYS a red flag for me when it comes to any debater on the matter. It's akin to saying that a person in a wheelchair has the same accessibility to a building with a flight of steps to its entrance as everyone else, if only they could walk.

Goodshape

LookingFor wrote: »

It's not fair to lump everyone in with those who choose - yes, choose - to express themselves very flamboyantly.

And often for only one day a year - or at least only on occasion.

To blur the line between that kind of expression and homosexuality itself is very disingenuous and irresponsible, however.

I totally agree. I think it's clear (particularly to the audience on this forum) that Power's article is a simply dreadful piece of journalism, or at least a woefully misinformed opinion piece.

I guess I'm just lamenting the fact that there's little else for the wider population to see. Once a year the queens pour out of the clubs and onto the street for a high-camp march, and this is the most visible expression of the gay community they're likely to see.

That would be fine if there were another side to things but I don't see that there is. I was speaking with my flatmate recently about gay nightclubs -- a perfectly open minded (straight) guy and one of my best friends for the past 10 years -- and he had honestly assumed that drag, feathers, high camp and promiscuity were the norm in the average gay venue. He'd certainly never been to one himself.

But I don't know, what do people here think? I'm admittedly a bit of a boring type when it comes to a night out -- prefer a few pints around a table with friends to any type of nightclub -- are people generally happy with the public perception of the 'gay community' ?

Is the aim to have this 'multi-colour' lifestyle become acceptable and respected in society? Or should we, as a community, be making more of an attempt to highlight the 'normal' gays. The one's you wouldn't necessarily be able to pick out of a line-up.

It's akin to saying that a person in a wheelchair has the same accessibility to a building with a flight of steps to its entrance as everyone else, if only they could walk.

Very good

4red

Brenda Power is a noted bigot and homophobe in her role as a 'journalist' for the Sunday Times and other publications.

I suggest you take her openly prejudiced anti-gay ramblings for being just that.

Her day is past, and even the conservative Sunday Times won't hold onto her for very much longer.

Ireland is moving forward - without the likes of Brenda Power.

DubArk

4red wrote: »

Brenda Power is a noted bigot and homophobe in her role as a 'journalist' for the Sunday Times and other publications.

I suggest you take her openly prejudiced anti-gay ramblings for being just that.

Her day is past, and even the conservative Sunday Times won't hold onto her for very much longer.

Ireland is moving forward - without the likes of Brenda Power.

Quite right! Brenda is the last of dinosaurs; it’s obvious to all who’ve read her outdated and some what childlike opinions on same sex couples that poor old Brenda hasn’t really got out much from her little heterosexual bubble.

She has a right to her view and the more Brendas that are out there the easier it will be for us to win our argument.

Rock on Brenda… you’re a god send!

shoegirl

Dublin pride is pretty mild compared to what I've seen in other countries.

Actually a lot of the dressing up actually disguises guys who might not want to go back and talk to the guys on the building site about their sexuality!!

Aoifums

This actually makes me feel awful

It is simply unfair to suggest taking a child, presumably conceived by a heterosexual couple, and placing them in an entirely different dynamic and in a family unit that makes them different from the start. That’s not about insulting or undermining homosexual partners; it’s about prioritising the rights of the child.

If only there weren't so many unwanted and orphaned children. She makes it sound like people are plucking children from their bio parents just to make a couple happy.

Goodshape

Panti has a piece on her blog about it : http://www.pantibar.com/blog.aspx?contentid=2797

Hopefully she'll find the time to write, and can get published, a proper response as one of the commentators suggests. That would make some worthwhile reading.


Seems Brenda is a fairly well known bigot anyway. Here's hoping I was making an issue out of mostly nothing with my OP.

Snoogans

Pride marches are the greatest threat to acceptance of the gay community.
Obviously the media will fixate on the more flamboyant people in these situations, what would you expect?
While getting a woman to straddle the barrell of a pink tank and driving it around is brilliant for raising actualy awareness of the gay community, it doesn't exactly present an image of someone who wants (deserves?) to be taken seriously. When the majority of homosexual or bisexual people in the media are so goddamn flamboyantly gay, and/or are defined by their sexuality, you realise that, in spite of all the progress that's been made, there's a long way to go.

anoisaris

Snoogans wrote: »

Pride marches are the greatest threat to acceptance of the gay community.

No, I would think bigots are!

Have you attended a pride march to make such a comment? Anyone that thinks that of the 12,000 marching through Dublin were surely not there themselves. Brenda Power fairly clearly wasn't in attendance either! If the media portrays it as all being men in dresses well then the media portrayal is very wrong.

Snoogans

anoisaris wrote: »

No, I would think bigots are!

Have you attended a pride march to make such a comment? Anyone that thinks that of the 12,000 marching through Dublin were surely not there themselves. Brenda Power fairly clearly wasn't in attendance either! If the media portrays it as all being men in dresses well then the media portrayal is very wrong.

My point is that when there are men in dresses, the media will fixate on them. And I don't blame them... well not much anyway. They'll always fixate on the most attention grabbing people. Those very deliberately camping it up are doing everyone else a disservice. Why do we even need to march through the streets because of our sexuality?
And to answer your question no, I've never been to a pride march, though I've been to some "pride parties" at college. I'm pretty deeply in the closet (due to my environment, unfortunately)

Goodshape

Snoogans wrote: »

Pride marches are the greatest threat to acceptance of the gay community.

Eehhh, I'm not so sure. Getting rid of the Pride celebrations altogether sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, and that's not what I was trying to suggest. In anycase, there's another thread here if you want to complain about the relevance of the Pride celebrations.

What I see as being important is that the Pride march, and other 'celebrations'/'protests' of that style, don't become the only outlet we have. Fun and games are great... a display of unity within a diverse community is great... but a man in a dress is still too easily dismissed by most people. Any political message is bound to be lost.


Something else Panti posted on her blog today -- a re-post of a letter written by the mother of a gay son to Minister Ahern. It's a beautiful letter and sure to bring a tear to many an eyebrow. I think we should be looking to foster more of this type of support from our friends, family and loved ones -- show them that it's not just the drag artists who are concerned about equal rights for the gays.

After that, I don't see any problem in us all getting together for a street party once a year . One need only turn up to the event to realise the fun far out-weighs the seedy.

Snoogans

Pride Marches as they are move us backwards rather than forwards I think. I mean why do you, or anyone else feel they have to march around to declare their sexuality. It's 2009, and I#'m prety sure the world knows gay people exist. We should be going to lengths to illustrate the fact that we're the same as anyone else, not trying to appear different.

anoisaris

Pride is a party above anything at this stage (albeit with political foundations) if people want to dress up-let them! If the media focus on the minority dressed up then yes that is a problem and unbalanced reporting.

Yeah it may be 2009 but many gay (especially younger or non-scene ones-see other posts here) and straight people probably didn't realise there was even 12,000 gay people in this country

Goodshape

Snoogans wrote: »

Pride Marches as they are move us backwards rather than forwards I think. I mean why do you, or anyone else feel they have to march around to declare their sexuality. It's 2009, and I#'m prety sure the world knows gay people exist. We should be going to lengths to illustrate the fact that we're the same as anyone else, not trying to appear different.

In my view the Pride Marches are for the gay community.. which is really my whole point. They shouldn't be seen as our chance for a political soap-box.

It's about showing those who might not be so sure about themselves that yes, there are loads of us, yes you can be as different and wonderful as you want, and yes there's a place for you here among friends. That's still important, even in 2009.

What I think might be lacking is something in addition to Pride. Turning up once a year for the parade and then disappearing back into our little designated gay zones just doesn't cut it. For whatever reason, people like Brenda Power (total bigot) and my flatmate (really nice open minded guy) have this drag and feathers image of the 'gay lifestyle'. Surely we can do something during the other 51 weeks in the year to show them that it's not the case.

And leave pride where it is. It's still important, just for entirely different reasons.

Snoogans

Goodshape wrote: »

In my view the Pride Marches are for the gay community.. which is really my whole point. They shouldn't be seen as our chance for a political soap-box.

It's about showing those who might not be so sure about themselves that yes, there are loads of us, yes you can be as different and wonderful as you want, and yes there's a place for you here among friends. That's still important, even in 2009.

I think that's a great sentiment, and one that should probably be echoed throughout our society, not just to gay people. I honestly hadn't looked at it that way before. I mean, I still have issues with simeltaneously wearing drag and peacock feathers, marching through the streets, and then being asked not to be stereotyped or complaining when not taken seriously, but I am seeing things another way too.

What I think might be lacking is something in addition to Pride. Turning up once a year for the parade and then disappearing back into our little designated gay zones just doesn't cut it. For whatever reason, people like Brenda Power (total bigot) and my flatmate (really nice open minded guy) have this drag and feathers image of the 'gay lifestyle'. Surely we can do something during the other 51 weeks in the year to show them that it's not the case.

And leave pride where it is. It's still important, just for entirely different reasons.

I think Pride wouldn't be as damaging in the way I think it is if we did do something different the other 51 weeks of the year, as you've suggested. Something just to let people know that not all gay people wear feathers and drag, we don't fancy every member of the same sex, and we're not all so flamboyantly camp we make people's houses catch on fire. How to go about that is more interesting.

anoisaris

August 9th!!! It won't be all feathers and drag and it will be political....

LookingFor

As much as pride has evolved to be a 'party' to a large degree..it absolutely does have a political element. It's roots were very political. And pride did have a pretty heavy political slant to it this year I think.

Aard

Snoogans wrote: »

I think Pride wouldn't be as damaging in the way I think it is if we did do something different the other 51 weeks of the year, as you've suggested. Something just to let people know that not all gay people wear feathers and drag, we don't fancy every member of the same sex, and we're not all so flamboyantly camp we make people's houses catch on fire. How to go about that is more interesting.

I think to start with, we should remove the political element from Pride. The message of "Equal rights for all", coupled with drag costumes and campness creates a dischord in many people's heads (not just straight people, mind). If Pride were marketed as more of a "family day out" (yes, I know, it would need radical remodelling) then I think the message of peace and harmony would be better carried.


Then, once that's de-politicised, we can have another entirely seperate rally for LGBT Rights, where the non-scene gays can come out of the woodwork without being associated with feathers and pink. For this we could campaign for the issues of marriage, adoption, recognition of transgendered people &c. This mightn't be in the form of a parade, but a rally in a large public area.


Atm, I don't attend Pride at all. However, were the above systems in place, I'd attend both. I'm sure many others are like me. It allows them to participate in the latter without being all "we're here, we're queer", and allows more people to participate in the former due to it's being just pure clean fun. It would boost visibility of the gay population (I don't say community) exponentially. And it would keep the roots of Pride alive by still having a political aspect.


What d'yous think?

anoisaris

The rally for rights (well one right at least-marriage!) you speak of is on August 9th in Dublin. it doesn't seem to be advertised much just yet but I'm sure it will be soon.

jimminy-boi

I've written a response to Brenda's letter over on my blog (http://conorpendergrast.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/open-letter-to-brenda-power/) but her Sunday Times e-mail address bounces, if anyone has it could they e-mail it to me: conorpendergrast [at] gmail [dot] com? Or Twitter: @conorp

Regards,

Conor P

Snoogans

Aard wrote: »

I think to start with, we should remove the political element from Pride. The message of "Equal rights for all", coupled with drag costumes and campness creates a dischord in many people's heads (not just straight people, mind). If Pride were marketed as more of a "family day out" (yes, I know, it would need radical remodelling) then I think the message of peace and harmony would be better carried.


Then, once that's de-politicised, we can have another entirely seperate rally for LGBT Rights, where the non-scene gays can come out of the woodwork without being associated with feathers and pink. For this we could campaign for the issues of marriage, adoption, recognition of transgendered people &c. This mightn't be in the form of a parade, but a rally in a large public area.


Atm, I don't attend Pride at all. However, were the above systems in place, I'd attend both. I'm sure many others are like me. It allows them to participate in the latter without being all "we're here, we're queer", and allows more people to participate in the former due to it's being just pure clean fun. It would boost visibility of the gay population (I don't say community) exponentially. And it would keep the roots of Pride alive by still having a political aspect.


What d'yous think?

I thought I was the only one that seemed to have issues with the current incarnation.

LookingFor

jimminy-boi wrote: »

I've written a response to Brenda's letter over on my blog (http://conorpendergrast.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/open-letter-to-brenda-power/) but her Sunday Times e-mail address bounces, if anyone has it could they e-mail it to me: conorpendergrast [at] gmail [dot] com? Or Twitter: @conorp

Regards,

Conor P

I intended on sending her a mail too..I ended up sending it to the online editor (online.editor@timesonline.co.uk), asking him/her to redirect it.

Now I hear she's basically the equivalent of a message board troll, I'm not sure if I should have bothered

edit - oops, I see you sent it to the editor already from your blog post.

common_parlance

I used to have doubts about Pride. Seeing as sexuality is an inherent quality and not something we decide for ourselves, I always wondered "what's there to be proud about?" I'm not "proud" of being a man, or white, or blue-eyed or anything else I didn't decide or achieve for myself.

But having attended this year I realise the importance of Pride. There is no "male community" - there are too many men with so little in common that they share no interests or goals. White people are too widespread and culturally diverse to ever come together as a community. Straight people are not unified and have no need to be. But the LGBTQ population, by virtue of its minority and the common challenges it faces does make for a community with its own culture. And I'm proud of that community, and that is the point of Pride.

Pride is a celebration. We cheer our community and our culture. And yes, it's a culture that includes flamboyance, fun and colour. I think the LGBT community is a community that has the confidence to enjoy itself and make fun of itself in front of all the Brenda Powers out there spreading their fallacies, misrepresentations and petty snipes.

As such comings-together of the LGBTQ community are rare, I think it is important for us to talk politics. But I agree that the real campaigning should be done outside Pride. Brenda wants serious? Then let's show her serious. See you on August 9th!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QJpW_16ch8

LegacyUser

DubArk wrote: »

Quite right! Brenda is the last of dinosaurs; it’s obvious to all who’ve read her outdated and some what childlike opinions on same sex couples that poor old Brenda hasn’t really got out much from her little heterosexual bubble.

She has a right to her view and the more Brendas that are out there the easier it will be for us to win our argument.

Rock on Brenda… you’re a god send!

Are you for real? You actually think that woman deserves even an inch on a national newspaper, I for one utterly ashamed that people like her still exist in modern ireland,I thought ireland was no longer a puppet for the church and how wrong I was. Equality is Equality no if ands or buts, I suggest reading the Article on Human Rights. When are people going to understand what being treated equal is. Homosexuals want no or no less than to be treated the same as our brothers and sisters.

solice

Just a quick question - how many LGB people dont go to pride and why dont they go?

Im not talking about people who are out in the schticks of the Dingle Peninsula who just cant make it, im talking about the LGB people who choose not to go because pride doesnt really represent them. There are 4.3 million people in this country, there is an estimated 430,000 homosexuals, 120,000 (if not more) in Dublin. Why did only 12,000 turn up to the national celebration of their sexuality?

I have been to pride in a number of countries and I have seen some amazing parades and political statements being made, and political people looking to make statments! but I have to say that I am affected by all the other aspects of the so called pride. Call it internalised homophobia, call it being uptight or a prude but pride today doesnt represent me or who I am. And I can see Brenda Powers point on this, people dressing up and acting they way they do on the day is not going to win any favours from the establishment and will not further the cause of the LGB movement.

The theme of pride was equality, I dont think anyone watching from the sidelines would have known that?

Originally pride was a rebellion, it was a struggle so that we could be considered normal, that our love wasnt an illegal activity, to be treated the same. Now it is a celebration of "being different".

I think that Pride needs to go back to its roots and hopefully this march in August will be that.

Brenda is entitled to her point of view, however skewed and wrong she is, if you want to flaunt your differences in her face, she is entitled to write about it.

Annasopra

Saw this on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=95636382876

MATT COOPERS THE LAST WORD ON TODAY FM TOMORROW 08/07 AT 6PM

Hi Guys,

I got a reply from Matt's Cooper Reasearch team, any of you interested in sharing your opinion please contact them. IT'S YOUR CHANCE TO TAKE PART !!!!!!!!!!!
I know that many of you (including myself) are not very pleased with the article by Brenda Power, please make valid points and stay professional about the subject.

They are hoping to speak to Brenda at about 6pm tomorrow on the program.

E-MAIL: MCarroll@todayfm.com Mary Carroll
Researcher The Last Word Today Fm

TEL: 00353 (0)1 8049023

m-i-t-s-u-k-o

solice wrote: »

Brenda is entitled to her point of view, however skewed and wrong she is, if you want to flaunt your differences in her face, she is entitled to write about it.

That may be but she has made a lot of wild assertions in that article and claimed them as fact.

Anyone just hear her on the radio?

Questions asked to her: Criminals can get married. Homosexuals can't even though homosexuality was decriminalised. Why is this?

Her response: Well children can't get married! Why's that? That's discrimination! That's a stupid argument and a stupid comparison.


One thing that confuses me about Ms Power's arguement is that she talks about how the Gay community go against social traditions with their life style but still they want to opt into the oldest social tradition of marriage.

My question is that since when is tradition always right or always good?
Since when is it such a bad thing to bring about change?

She talked about how traditionally two parents of two genders brought up a child and that must be better because it's tradition. Lies. It's only tradition because homosexuality has only recently become a social norm.

LookingFor

I didn't hear the segment..but I really, really hope someone pulled her up on the "'beyond the pale' social expression/behaviour as why gays are not worthy of traditions" logic, and how the same logic can be applied to straight people, or anyone (see: dublin on a saturday night).

I'm not sure I've much hope her logic was devoured if she was given openings to get in such stupidities as a comparison to marriage between children though..people just need to stop giving people like this a platform. They're knowingly provocative, provocation lines their pockets.

dimejinky99

here's the link to the show
prepare to be disgusted but on this afternoons todayfm show the Last Word, she went overboard completely..you can hear it here in the 6pm hour..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6637267.ece




if more than ten people complain to the Gardaí claiming incitment to hatred they have to look into it and take action against the person once they have investigated it. If we all complain to the same police station and enough people do it, we can effect a return against this womans hateful disgusting rant today. Same applies to TDs but the number is 6. I suggest we complain to both as well as writing to the Sunday Times to let them know how you feel.

Pearse Street Gardai are at

01-6669000


Get dialing.

solice

LookingFor wrote: »

people just need to stop giving people like this a platform. They're knowingly provocative, provocation lines their pockets.

And how exactly is brushing her comments under the carpret going to help? That is a typical Irish attitude, pretend its not there and hope it goes away. People like Brenda Power will always be there, saying things that the average person would consider to be ridiculous. She will always be there because she has an audience, people who believe her. The only way to deal with this kind ignorance is to educate!

I listened to the segment and Brenda Power came across very badly (I thought):
1 - Everything she said was her opinion, she wasnt able to back up anything with fact. The other caller was able to reference studies that were carried out and she just dismissed them saying she could find reports that said the opposite. But she didnt!
2 - She was highly irrational, saying things like, children are not allowed to get married, is that discrimination? She was equating homosexuals to adolescent children.
3 - She made an assumption that pregnant women would rather have an abortion than give up their child to adoption if they thought their child would be adopted by homosexuals. Again, no facts, no statistics, just opinion.

But, however badly she came across her core argument is the rights of the child. She was not attacking homosexuals, she was defending children and I appreciate that point. If people are serious that about adopting children then they need to get rid of the chip on their shoulder and start focusing on the making the lives of children better. This is not about you, this is about them!

She believes that proper place in society for children to grow up is in a "traditional" family unit. And her exposure to the LGB "community" (I use the word community hessitantly) was pride where she saw people dressed up in flamboyant clothes or getting drunk etc. We as a community (*shudder*) need to educate her that what she saw was not the norm, is not everyday and is not representative of the majority.

Alot of this as well is hot air on our part. She came across so badly, she is very ill informed. It would be easy to point out many things to her in a rational debate. Hounding her for incitment of hatred is not the way to go.

mobius42

dimejinky99 wrote: »

here's the link to the show
prepare to be disgusted but on this afternoons todayfm show the Last Word, she went overboard completely..you can hear it here in the 6pm hour..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6637267.ece
if more than ten people complain to the Gardaí claiming incitment to hatred they have to look into it and take action against the person once they have investigated it. If we all complain to the same police station and enough people do it, we can effect a return against this womans hateful disgusting rant today. Same applies to TDs but the number is 6. I suggest we complain to both as well as writing to the Sunday Times to let them know how you feel.

Pearse Street Gardai are at

01-6669000


Get dialing.

I agree with registering your disgust with the Sunday Times about her but claiming incitement to hatred and contacting the Guards? That's a bit much, I think. Don't we have free speech in this country? She should be allowed to voice her opinions, no matter how bigoted or stupid they are. Besides, I heard her on The Last Word and she did herself no favours. Her point was completely undermined by just the existence of the guy raised by two women, yet she insisted that the fact that people are gay makes them less desirable as parents. She certainly didn't convince anyone that didn't already agree with her.

I laughed when she claimed the tradition argument: marriages have always been this way etc. Slavery and women being second class citizens were traditions too, but we got rid of them! Her opinions are based on nothing but ignorance and bigotry and this was shown by the fact that she was not really able to defend her point beyond saying that heterosexual couples were more "desirable". She pretty much ignored the man they brought on to challenge her and kept saying the same tired old thing over and over. What determines how good a couple are as parents is determined by their ability to create a healthy and loving environment for their kids, not who they're attracted to.

DubArk

mobius42 wrote: »

I agree with registering your disgust with the Sunday Times about her but claiming incitement to hatred and contacting the Guards? That's a bit much, I think. Don't we have free speech in this country? She should be allowed to voice her opinions, no matter how bigoted or stupid they are.

I agree with you on this point. We have to remember that ringing the Garda is NOT the solution to shutting up Brenda Power and I firmly believe that she has the right to be heard. I would go as far as saying I support her right to be heard and would be appalled if anyone took away Brenda’s right to free speech.

But it too must be recognised that we have the right to reply to Brenda, im sure Brenda would support us on that front, if none other.

Brenda is a bit of a country bumpkin having been dragged up in Kilkenny, deeply conservative catholic lass, producing five children in the name of the family unit. Believe it or not educated in law and journalism, yes educated!

I have noticed she is very good at pointing out the buffoonery in any argument, as she did by dissecting the Pride march and using this as her main point in her argument against same sex marriage. The Pride march is not a true representation of same sex relationships, it is a march that allows people to express there differences, to a point. That’s it, it is not supposed to represent all other people who are NOT heterosexual, and it’s a march!! End of.

It would be as stupid of me to say that because of the latest Church procession, all these guys dressing in 14th century frocks marching around with their gold cups (bling) and crosses, just look at the Pope and his buddies, are a true representation of all Catholics, this very same church that has been slated in its contribution to so many rapes and physical abuse cases of children in its care and the break up of so many family units.

As we all know the church has nothing to do with this debate as it is CIVAL law that were talking about. Brenda knows this but still has to speak with her silver lined papist trap and divert us all from the true argument. The argument is that Brenda is so bigoted that she can’t see the truth and tries every trick in the book to envelope herself with the Church as the light of all knowledge, the true protector of the family, at the same time tarnishing Gay people with as much ridicule as possible and forgetting that were talking about Real peoples lives.

These are the very same Real People who want their right to express their true love for one another in their country by a recognised state marriage, protecting their relationship in the eyes of the law. These are the very same Real People who contribute to this state every day, contributing to the monitory and cultural systems as much as any citizen. Real People who are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, living in this, now diverse society, wanting their right to express themselves, the same way as any citizen in Ireland, despite Brenda Powers out dated, ignorant, selfish, egotistical minds set!

See Brenda wants us to argue about the marches and the differences between us all, divide and conquer!! Let’s not play into Brendas blessed hands and remain steadfast to the point. The POINT has been that same-sex marriages should be regarded as a human right, to be able to enter into marriage regardless of the genders of the participants.

So let’s forget about Side-Show-Brenda and her one man show and concentrate on the issue at hand. Side-Show-Brenda would love you to call the Garda, feeding into her ignorant, selfish, egotistical nature rather then us getting on with what we need to do.

mobius42

DubArk wrote: »

So let’s forget about Side-Show-Brenda and her one man show and concentrate on the issue at hand. Side-Show-Brenda would love you to call the Garda, feeding into her ignorant, selfish, egotistical nature rather then us getting on with what we need to do.

You're right. The best way to deal with people such as her is to show that gay people are just like everyone else and as such, entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Trying to shut her up with legal threats only gives her ammunition to claim persecution.

LookingFor

OK, listened to the TodayFM segment.

She didn't hold herself very well. There was little for Conor to say because really Matt Cooper was doing a reasonable enough job deconstructing her arguments.

I think the first thing worth noting is that she had drawn back her position from that which was in the article to two points - at least initially. One relating to adoption and the 'aspirational ideal' for raising children was a heterosexual couple, and two that if people were protesting while wearing half a wedding dress or tuxedo at pride that gay people can't blame others for not taking them seriously.

This was already a deviation from the main points of her article..the main one being that 'wearing half a dress' at pride or the outward expression of some folks at pride speaks against the worthiness of gay people to the traditional (i.e. marriage). That gay people didn't have a right to such tradition as long as there were any people at pride in drag.

So she was already trying to reframe her argument to something I presume she figured would make more logical sense and that would be more logically acceptable to more people.

But as the debate went on her logic continued to be challenged.

I found it humerous she raised an extreme (i.e. a child being adopted by 'Ms Panti and her boyfriend') having just minutes earlier defended heterosexual couples from the same 'extreme' cases of alcoholics and criminals etc.

She then dismissed examples of studies raised about the raising of children by homosexual couples, and didn't in return cite any specific challenging studies, showing that she has in fact not researched the matter at all. She's just going on her gut feeling (and only accepting that which confirms her gut feeling, dismissing everything else).

She then tries to suggest that marriage is defined by its support for offspring. Cooper challenges her on that. There's a back on forth on that, Cooper whittles away the notion that marriage is defined by its provisions for children. So then, exasperated, with nowhere to turn, she pulls the "well children can't get married" card :pac: Clearly a point of desperation for Ms. Power.

Her lingering point was then that if children aren't involved, gay people should be happy with partnership, ignoring matters of 'seperate but equal' and cases like Conor's where children are involved, and should enjoy status and protection with regard to both parents. She seemed unwilling to recognise that the two ladies in question were his parents, that the relationship between the biological mother and father should take precedence from a 'legal provision' POV. Which is a pretty cruel suggestion to be honest.

One other point, not unique to Power, but something she raises..is the whole "well we shouldn't allow it because children of such couples will be teased". This is such a cowardly sentiment.. it really just gets on my wick. The problem is not going to be solved by gay people staying quiet and not asking for recognition and equality and protection. She seems to want to place the responsibility for that bullying etc. on the shoulders of people who'd dare to ask for equality. That point of view angers me no end. Kids used to be teased and bullied (and possibly still are) for having a different colour of skin, or for having poor parents, or for having rich parents, or for having parents of mixed race etc. But with issues of race, for example, the answer wasn't to stop mixed race couples of dissuade them. The answer was to challenge those who created the environment in which bullying like that was allowed. It's not up to gay people to solve that by simply disappearing into the shadows!

In summary she seems like someone who has a deeprooted belief about the matter who cannot countenance challenges to that belief..who seeks only that which affirms her view, and who isn't open to changing her mind.

anotherlostie

She's at it again in this week's paper.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6689371.ece

I would say her tone is a little better than last week's but still shameful that she gets paid to write this muck (and I, and others promote her work to a wider audience)

ixoy

Oh look, she used the word "agenda" in there. Well done there Brenda. She also equated the fact that a number of gay people dressed in a wedding frock, to illustrate a point, are now representative of the entire gay population of Ireland.
Brenda Power is a "journalist", she's Irish, therefore all Irish people are journalists.

Stark

So she's taken the point of women past-menopause being allowed to get married and used the 67 year woman in Britain as a counter-argument. I eagerly await her response when research on artificial sperm allows two women to have a child that the genetic offspring of them both.

LegacyUser

Ah she is hilarious, is she a few spuds short of an Irish stew or what? why is she throwing around the misogynistic comment if she bothered to read half the comments and letters written about her and to her she would see they are from women. Does she think homosexuality only involves men or something? Hmmmm misogynistic lesbians there's an oxymoron if ever I heard of one.

Aard

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that, as it is, gay people in Ireland CAN adopt. Ok, let me rephrase: a SINGLE GAY person can adopt. Now, I have no evidence so please feel free to prove me wrong, but am I right in saying that in theory, legally, a same-sex couple can rear a child? Brenda Power seems to miss this point entirely. Rather than focusing her energies on same-sex MARRIAGE, it appears to me that she'd be better off arguing for the cessation of adoption by single gay people.

By refusing same-sex marriage, she, and others, are infringing on the rights of children of same sex parents. I'll reiterate: it seems to be possible and legal for a same-sex couple to adopt a child. Brenda argues for the rights of the child, yet fails to see that it is legal for a gay person to adopt already.



(I'm sorry, I'm just awake, and not very coherent, please ignore the rambling in my post :$ )

LookingFor

Gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children. People should not be judged on how they look and dress. Children brought up by gay couples do at least as well, if not much better, than the children of heterosexual households. The Pride parade is intended as a celebration, not a provocation. And Miss Panti, aka Rory O’Neill, is to be addressed as “she”.

Some people did make strong and considered arguments rebutting the opinions I’d expressed, and some of their points are summarised above. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that they are opinions.

Hmm, no Brenda. The bolded point is not an opinion.

As per her first article she was using the attire and behaviour of a few gay people to argue against the worthiness of the tradition of marriage for all gay people (and latterly suggested the same with regard to their worthiness as parents..see her comment about 'ms panti and her boyfriend' adopting).

It is not merely an opinion that people should not be painted with the same brush based on the attire or behaviour of a minority who share some innate trait with others.

To do is..to stereotype. To negatively stereotype an entire group of people based on some innate quality (e.g. race, sexuality, handed-ness, hair colour, eye colour etc.) is a logical fallacy. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simply not logically correct. And as a result, quite rightly, leads to the concept of various '-isms' and defence against them.

Lawyers still study logic, right?

The point is, I do not see how that is possible. Marriage is primarily intended for the protection of children who may result from a union of a man and a woman, which is the only sort of union capable of producing offspring.

This? Now this is an opinion. Marriage is not IMO primarily about protection of children. This was something that was debated with her on the matt cooper show.

Possibly the silliest argument against this interpretation is the one that goes: “Oh, so does that mean that married couples who don’t have children should have their marriage licences revoked then?” This deliberately confuses the objective of protecting offspring and the obligation to produce them.

If there's no obligation then the means to biologically produce children isn't a requisite for enjoying the status of marriage. Forget about menopausal women, by this logic I assume she would also argue that sterile couples of any age should not be allowed to marry.

edit - I also read that apparently the case she cites was of a woman who became pregnant via IVF treatment and donor sperm.. the exact same method lesbian couples use to have children!

Boiled down to a single sentence, the one line that my many critics would have me write on that blackboard is: “I must not upset a gay person.” Nor must I disagree with their opinions, dissent from their agenda, and I must not say that men in cutaway green wedding dresses look a bit daft.

Darling, you can say they look daft all you like. The point is you said that because they did that, gay people in general are not worthy of the tradition of marriage. That was one of the primary points of your original article. You've since engaged in some revisionist history, but that doesn't change what you originally wrote for those of us with reasonably functioning memory.

Within a community that expects and demands so much tolerance, there appears to be a vocal, militant and markedly misogynistic element that is reluctant to show tolerance for any opinions that don’t accord precisely with its own. No democratic society can afford to indulge groups who seek to punish and silence those who dare disagree with them.

So here we go..painted into a corner by her own poor logic, she nails herself to a cross. I don't know how many militant or misogynistic letters she recieved, but I dare say they were likely - again - a minority. Yet again she reaches to characterise all of us similarly. What about the rest of us who simply argued against you with logic, Brenda? Should be not be indulged then?

Her ego is simply too big to accept where she misfired, so she revises history (i.e. revises what she actually says) so as to avoid addressing her failed logic, and then paints her critics as women-hating and undemocratic. Dirty, dirty tactics.

common_parlance

I agree with you, LookingFor. I think the best way to deal with the likes of Brenda Power is not to ignore her, but to address her directly. Even though her articles show no mercy for logic, she does seem to have taken on board some of the well-reasoned arguments she and her editor received over the course of last week.

In fact, these arguments caused her to engage in the revisionism we saw in her second column, showing that her articles boast shaky foundations, borne most likely from the ill-informed nature of her stance.

As she becomes better informed (but, I hope, not heckled or threatened) by the wider LGBT population, we will hopefully see her withdraw her inane arguments (e.g. the need to be able to produce children in order to marry; vasectomy anyone?) and either back down, ignore us, or (hopefully) continue to produce increasingly feeble defences.

And increasingly feeble they will be, because I think deep down we all suspect her real reasons for her anti-gay marriage stance comes basically from a, to put it mildly, "down-with-that-sort-of-people" attitude.

Ultimately she will paint herself into a corner. We just need to continue to supply the paint.

ixoy

Unregistered wrote: »

Where is homosexuality in nature,of course as with most things humans do on this planet we`re divored from nature here too,where will it all end?

Here it is from a well-regarded scientific magazine. That's just one article - there's many more. Just picked that because it's backed up by little things like scientific research.

Brenda Power is entitled to her views sure, but she has to be aware that when she publicly writes about them then we're equally going to respond to refute her claims about marriage and what we see as a very narrow, and often misguided, knowledge about gay people.

Roro4Brit

Pride makes me sick.

L1011

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Pride makes me sick.

Care to provide some more background to this?

Aard

There actually was a substantial, reasonable post there; I don't know why he edited it

ixoy

The Letters section in today's Sunday Times was once again filled with lots of fan mail for Brenda... Can't find a link for it now but she didn't have a column piece this week.

eightyfish

I realise I'm late to the thread, but I've just read her article and it's made me quite annoyed. I felt the need to respond to a few points in it, thought I'd post here:

But it’s the omissions in the bill, rather than those provisions that would have been utterly unthinkable even a decade ago that have irked the more vocal campaigners.

Of course they have, because these are the very points on which gay people are not equal. An Irish person and a Brazilian person get married. If they are heterosexual, they can live in Dublin freely. If they are homosexual, they are forced to leave the country and live in the UK, and the partner of the Irish person needs to get a visa to come home. You expect people to be happy about this because some progress has been made?

Homosexuals insist that their nature is an inherent, essential reality, and not a lifestyle choice. But if we were to judge by the get-up and carry-on of some of those in the Pride march last week, that’s hard to believe

And If I were to judge you by the "carry-on" during your radio show, where you ring up the poor admin assistants of HSE workers and abuse them down the phone for their bosses' not being available and for them not being willing to talk live on air at no notice, I would judge you to be a tabloidesque self-promoting bully.

Some are definitely choosing to pursue a way of life that is quite alien to the majority of married heterosexual parents in this country, indeed deliberately and defiantly so

Of for God sake. You're wrong, and I can prove it.

Marriage is a legal and religious union between a man and a woman. That’s a definition, in the same way as Irish stew is a dish made with lamb, spuds and turnips

Not a definition, but a statement of your opinion. For me, marriage would eventually be a union between a man and a woman, but it would not be religious. For the unfortunate couple now living in London mentioned earlier, it is a union between a man and a man and also an example of why Ireland is still religiously bigoted.

Panti is wrong on another point — homosexuals are entirely free to marry. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex

I'm not accusing you of racism here but I do equate homophobia with racism in terms of the way it treats a group in society as unequal. Replace homosexuals above with Africans and you'll see what I mean. They are free to marry, but as long as they are not homosexual?

It is simply unfair to suggest taking a child, presumably conceived by a heterosexual couple, and placing them in an entirely different dynamic and in a family unit that makes them different from the start. That’s not about insulting or undermining homosexual partners; it’s about prioritising the rights of the child.

Like being adopted in the first place doesn't make them different from the rest? Or being fat? Or being the geeky kid? You simply can't expect everyone to conform to your idea of normality, nor is everybody entitled to conform to it. It's not a case of deciding on your opinion, Brenda, it's a case of looking at these kids who have been brought up by gay couples and seeing that they grow up be be healthy, and (for the most part) happy members of society. As far I can see, the evidence currently suggests that they do.

While the gay community in this country chooses to express itself in the manner of last week’s Pride march, deliberately provoking reaction and comment, keen to shock and primed to take umbrage if the wrong pronoun is applied to a bloke in a dress, there’s not much chance of that.

Can I just say that you are doing the ultimate crime of judging the many by the few. Not all gay people wish to express themselves in the manner on display at gay pride. My gay friends would not think of attending a pride parade. Other gay people do, and feel expressive that society has, for the most part, overcome the prejudices of the past. Either way, each to their own. They don't all fit into the one category just because they're gay. If I were to think all journalists were like you, I would never buy a newspaper again.