John Waters, Irish Times, Friday 31st July

eightyfish

Here we go again.... "Gay lobby mangles meaning of marriage"

rainbow kirby

All I got to say to that is...

Goodshape

John Waters wrote:

"Many people never get married and do not regard themselves as discriminated against."

Wow, I never thought of it that way before! I guess he's right!

I for one feel much better now for never having the option, the choice or the freedom to get marr...


Oh, no. Waaaiitt a minute.... that's not actually the same thing at all. You. ****ing. Gob****e.

eightyfish

This bit is annoying, in a similar way to Brenda Power:

Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are prohibited from marrying people of their own sex. It is no more valid to allege wrongful discrimination in this context against gays than to argue that cycle lanes “discriminate” wrongfully against wheelbarrows.

So they are free to marry as long as they are not gay? How is that not f*cking discrimination?

Goodshape

eightyfish wrote: »

So they are free to marry as long as they are not gay? How is that not f*cking discrimination?

No no no - gays can marry too! Just so long as it's someone of the opposite sex and not, you know, someone they might actually be in love with.

How can that not make sense!?

Daisy D

Goodshape wrote: »

No no no - gays can marry too! Just so long as it's someone of the opposite sex and not, you know, someone they might actually be in love with.

How can that not make sense!?

Exact same line Brenda Power used while talking to Matt Cooper few wks ago!! I'm over it....we'll teach them the seriousness of it on August 9th!! DUBLIN WILL SEE US COMING!

Stark

Ah Fanny Waters is at it again. "Gay marriage is stupid. Gays are stupid. Cycle lanes are stupid".

I especially love this bit:

"Every child has a father and mother, so any adopted child is by definition separated from at least one of these. What is Amnesty’s position on the child’s right to be brought up by his/her own father and/or mother?".

So I'm guessing Amnesty should round up every sperm donor and absentee father and force them to marry the child's biological mother and live happily ever after in a nice heteronormative societal unit? Of course Fanny displays complete ignorance of the complexities of real world chlid conception and rearing situations.

Untense

These 'opinion piece' people must have a little crank-operated opinion machine that spurts out ticker tapes of nosensical arguments.

All men and all women have a right to marry, provided they wish to marry members of the opposite sex to whom they are not closely related by blood. Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are prohibited from marrying people of their own sex. It is no more valid to allege wrongful discrimination in this context against gays than to argue that cycle lanes “discriminate” wrongfully against wheelbarrows.

Exactly!
It's just like the prohibition of interracial marriage! After all, the white person is equally not allowed marry the black person.
Nobody is stopping a black or white person from marrying a person of their own colour. It's such a silly notion anyway, imagine a bicycle marrying a wheelbarrow! Ridiculous!

DrumSteve

Daisy D wrote: »

Exact same line Brenda Power used while talking to Matt Cooper few wks ago!! I'm over it....we'll teach them the seriousness of it on August 9th!! DUBLIN WILL SEE US COMING!

filthy.

Arathorn

I never knew much about John Waters until I read an article he wrote about Katy French around the time she died, it was so over the top and sycophantic that I first thought it was a joke. I have no interest what so ever in what he has to say. Just ignore him guys and gals, his time has passed, just a dinosaur whose opinions are becomming less and less relevant every day.

eightyfish

Waters' argument gets deconstructed, thank you ELOISE McINERNEY

mobius42

Arathorn wrote: »

I never knew much about John Waters until I read an article he wrote about Katy French around the time she died, it was so over the top and sycophantic that I first thought it was a joke. I have no interest what so ever in what he has to say. Just ignore him guys and gals, his time has passed, just a dinosaur whose opinions are becomming less and less relevant every day.

You're assuming they were ever relevant! Every time I've seen this guy on TV programs in the past while, he has come out with the most stupid opinions I've ever heard outside the Internet. I remember he was on the last Q & A a while back and everyone else on the panel basically laughed at him whenever he opened his mouth.

ninety6days

He's a maddeningly irrelevant creature and this is, frankly, true to form.

youngblood

I wrote to John and asked him why he so vehemently denies gay people the right to marriage and how far he would go to defend his position,
here is his reply

My position on this relates to my understanding of the human and social context of marriage. The point of marriage is to provide a structure for the proper nurturing of the next generation. By definition, marriage involves a man and a woman, because only through the involvement of a man and a woman does human procreation occur. God/creation/nature dictates that a child has a father and mother, and it is my firm belief that only through the presence of both can the welfare of the child be maximised. (Please do not come back with any of the usual asinine arguments about parents who die and so forth).

The question arises: if gay people are to, in your phrase, "raise families", where will the children come from? Again by definition, any child raised in a gay "family" will have been deprived of at least one of his or her parents.(I refuse to use the tautology "natural parents", an invention of idealogues as a way of preparing the way for their onslaught on language and the facts of human reality).

. For some time I have been pointing out that, although our society has been bullied close to providing for gay Marriage" and gay adoption, our politicians have steadfastly refused to do anything to protect the relationships between fathers and children. Were gay adoption to be facilitated under the present dispensation, I believe the outcome would be a gross abuse of human rights, whereby children would be, in effect, snatched from their fathers by the State, to be handed over to gay couples. What do you think might be the consequences of such a development? It goes without saying, of course, that adoptions would also be subject to quotas, whereby a percentage of children would have to be given to gay couples. Why, if a man is not allowed to "adopt" his own child, should he have to stand by and watch that child being taken and brought up by two other men who just happen to bugger one another?

As for how far I would be prepared to go to defend this position: well, for one thing, i shall be prepared to continue stating it, in spite of the vile, systematic bullying and intimidation I continue to be subjected to by members of the gay community.

I trust this answers your questions.

Yours sincerely,

John Waters

So it seems he's afraid gay men/women are gonna take his children-thats why he's mental

One question I didnt ask was what did he do to put himself in the position that he worries that gay men/women would "take" his children

Sesudra

I know I can't wait for my adopted child to be snatched from their father :rolleyes: why do the Times keep publishing this crank?

LegacyUser

While I am a firm supporter of gay marriage I do understand some of what Waters is getting at here. Not enough has been done by the state for the rights of lone fathers. If Gay marriage does come about, gay couples would have the right be able to adopt the child of a lone father. As of now, the lone mother has the right to their child but fathers do not. While I personally believe gay marriage should come about and that they should be allowed to adopt, I firstly believe rights should be given to a natural father of a child first and then bring in gay marriage, because gay marriage, which I believe should be seen as no different to straight marriage, would only greater the chances of a loving father losing their child. I also don't think people should be blasting Waters the way they are here. The man has campaigned so much for the rights of fathers. Maybe you don't agree with his views on gay marriage and I am a little annoyed too at him on this issue but he is not as shoddy a journalist as, lets say, the likes of Fintan O' Waste of the trees, total and utter Toole.

Sesudra

Yes Thats Right wrote: »

If Gay marriage does come about, gay couples would have the right be able to adopt the child of a lone father. As of now, the lone mother has the right to their child but fathers do not.

But don't straight couples,or single adopters, also have the right to adopt the child of a lone father?or is this something thats just being brought in for gay couples?I'm not denying that lone fathers are given a raw deal but it seems strange that this arguement is being brought up as an arguement against adoption by gay couples-why not lobby for the abolition of all adoption if this is an issue?

Waters obviously has a problem with gay people adopting,as he says in his reply "Why, if a man is not allowed to "adopt" his own child, should he have to stand by and watch that child being taken and brought up by two other men who just happen to b***** one another?".This arguement seems,to me,to be totally hysterical and not a little homophobic

eightyfish

Can I ask people here, after reading Waters' reply a few posts ago-

Does the adoption of gay marriage hang on gay couples' rights to adopt children? How would you feel about the UK position, where gay couples have every single right that straight couples do in marriage, except that they are not by default immediately entitled to adopt children.

Sesudra

eightyfish wrote: »

Can I ask people here, after reading Waters' reply a few posts ago-

Does the adoption of gay marriage hang on gay couples' rights to adopt children? How would you feel about the UK position, where gay couples have every single right that straight couples do in marriage, except that they are not by default immediately entitled to adopt children.

To me,they're two seperate but equally important issues.From a purely selfish viewpoint,the marriage issue is more important for me as we don't plan to have kids.But I think the two should go hand in hand if we're talking about having full equality.The reaction to the Civil Partnership Bill has shown that half measures,or a bit of equality here or there isn't going to satisfy people.

What does bother me is the way the adoption issues is now being used as the scare tactic,for example by "journalists" like Brenda Power and especially John Waters-"Well,if ye let them get married,those gays will be adopting your kids next,and sure don't most of them get up to all sorts?".It seems to me like the marriage issue isn't a stumbling block to most straight people,but the adoption issue is.

eightyfish

Sesudra wrote: »

What does bother me is the way the adoption issues is now being used as the scare tactic,for example by "journalists" like Brenda Power and especially John Waters-"Well,if ye let them get married,those gays will be adopting your kids next,and sure don't most of them get up to all sorts?".It seems to me like the marriage issue isn't a stumbling block to most straight people,but the adoption issue is.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you about Power and Waters (I have other reasons for disliking them as well - Waters' anti-atheist Catholicism and Power's self-righteousness), and I agree with you that they're almost two separate issues, I have to admit I'm not sure as to my position on the adoption thing.

I have personal reasons for being passionately in support of gay marriage. I am not gay myself, but my best friend of many years is. He had to go to London to marry his long-term Brazilian boyfriend, and they both had to re-locate to Glasgow to live. They had to abandon family and friends, and find new jobs. I find it disgusting that this country is so backward and homophobic that it shuns people like this.

I understand that the civil partnership bill will not cover partners from outside the EU (though I may be corrected), and this seems to me to be not only homophobic but also racist.

The adoption thing, however, I am not sure about. I can understand the argument that a child has a right to a mother and a father figure, and I also understand that in many cases this is not the situation children end up in. I would rather remove any personal opinion or personal bias from the issue, and look only at the evidence available. The evidence seems, at the moment, to indicate that children of same-sex-families do just as well as other children. Thus, I tend to lean towards support of it. I do, however, understand people's unease with the issue. My friends in Glasgow would tend to be the same.

So - I almost feel that the UK position is as fair as it can be. Unfortunately, we can't seem to be even that forward-thinking.

Sesudra

eightyfish wrote: »

I would rather remove any personal opinion or personal bias from the issue, and look only at the evidence available. QUOTE]

Bravo to you,if only more people could take that view!seriously,thats very refreshing:D

And unease is exactly the right word-adoption will,I reckon,end up being a bigger fighting point than marriage currently is.Only time will tell I guess

boredboard

maybe John should marry a man (if this happens in the future) and then he could adopt his children??? (not too familiar/bothered about his personal situation) after all he has already indicated that heterosexuals, like homosexuals, cannot marry people of the same sex but everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex (within reason) so surely love does not have to be the basis of marriage by his reckoning ; he may also learn that buggery is optional...