Bullying & Homophobia In Today's Youth

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

Secondly, it only applies to employment. They can choose not to hire you if they feel you will undermine their religious ethos(but they will need a good prima facie case that it would be true), they can't fire you for sexual orientation or religious faith - they can only discriminate at the interview stage.

Sure that's grand then, being turned down for a job because of your sexual orientation is fine, as long as they can't fire people who slip through the interview or choose to hide it when applying for jobs.

Thirdly, this section targets people of different faiths far more than it does LGBT community, specifically because it qualifies the right to discriminate sexual orientation with "that the relevant characteristic of D is or amounts to an occupational qualification for the post in question."

Grand so, people of different faiths (or those with none) get discriminated against more often than gay people in this case.
Surely that means discrimination against gay people is non-existent or should be allowed (as should discrimination against those outside the Catholic faith I guess).

Pygmalion

unknown13 wrote: »

I will believe this once it is backed up with a written, reliable and neutral source.

So you're looking for a straight person with no strong feelings at all about gay people, and no incentive either way, to have taken the time and effort to research and report on cases of discrimination against gay people?

Anyone who isn't biased one way or the other just won't get involved

Pygmalion

Pygmalion wrote: »

So you're looking for a straight person with no strong feelings at all about gay people, and no incentive either way, to have taken the time and effort to research and report on cases of discrimination against gay people?

Anyone who isn't biased one way or the other just won't get involved

I believe by this he meant an act of law or precedent case.

Chuchoter

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a time too when gay meant both happy and homosexual. By your line of reasoning, using it to mean gay was 'misuse'.

Your other line of reasoning is really just ignoring context. You can tell by the way a person says the word; their tone, their inflections; which version they mean.
If you don't feel great when people use the word in that way, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd stop using it around gay friends if they raised the issue with me. I don't know a lot of gay people, but one of the few I do actually uses the word to mean '****' himself, so I'm certainly not going to use it full stop.

If using gay to mean '****' is wrong, then using the word f**k must be doing people who have sex wrong..?

tl;dr Words have multiple meanings - people use context to distinguish them.

Also you are completely right, gay used to mean happy, it then ACTUALLY evolved to mean homosexual, and you never hear it used to mean happy anymore. If I look it up in the dictionary, I will find it means joyful, showy and homosexual, but not bad. So they are misusing the word.
Well I don't know the origins of the work **** so I can't argue that.

Tragedy wrote: »

Firstly, isn't it the EEA 1998?
Secondly, it only applies to employment. They can choose not to hire you if they feel you will undermine their religious ethos(but they will need a good prima facie case that it would be true), they can't fire you for sexual orientation or religious faith - they can only discriminate at the interview stage.
Thirdly, this section targets people of different faiths far more than it does LGBT community, specifically because it qualifies the right to discriminate sexual orientation with "that the relevant characteristic of D is or amounts to an occupational qualification for the post in question."

How many cases of sexual orientation discrimination have you heard in schools/hospitals? Implying LGBT can't work in the majority of public services is quite a serious/damaging implication, and one that to my knowledge is broadly untrue.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0408/1224267892535.html
Hence the great lack of out gay doctors and teachers. There are 80 members of the gay doctors union. That should say something, because there are more than 80 gay doctors in the country

Why should the majority be forced to learn it for a tiny minority? I have and had no interest in learning about it in school, why should I have to to suit the minority?

Unfortunately, I'm firmly in the belief that while there are still large societal obstacles to overcome, the largest obstacle lies with the LGBT community seeing persecution and discrimination everywhere and acting accordingly.

Tragedy, could you try keep what you're saying to 1 post, vs 3 all directed to me? Its confusing to read. Now onto your first point.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0408/1224267892535.html
Hence the great lack of out gay doctors and teachers. There are 80 members of the gay doctors union. That should say something, because there are more than 80 gay doctors in the country

I learn about disabled people. I don't know a single disabled person, but I think it is important for me to understand the issues around it. I don't smoke or drink, but other people in my class do. I do not want to deprive them of education relevant to them.

I agree that the LGBTQ community creates some of its own problems, personally I think Pride is a bit of a shambles, but there are issues that need to be tackled and if we don't tackle them nobody else will do it for us.

Tragedy wrote: »

You didn't refute it, because I never said homosexual people are no longer called names.

Please quote me saying that, please please please? Or are you seeing LGBT discrimination even here?


It's being misused by the LGBT community. Yes, yes it is.


It didn't mean homosexual in the first place, and I'm sure there's a lot of people on this board who has memories of their grand parents using gay in the traditional sense and coming out with really inappropriate things as a result.


That's the persons hang-ups, not mine, not the other people saying gay, not the rest of societies.

So when a girl breaks up with her boyfriend and is completely devastated and depressed, no-one in society can mention the word boyfriend or relationship because she'll feel sh!t about herself?
It's the same logic, and it's the same oppressive censorship by a tiny minority.

If you want to ban gay as a synonym for bad(seriously, when's the last time you heard someone use gay as a slur against someone who was homosexual? "Oh my god you're gay!" "Yes I am?" "Ok!" wow), ban gay as a synonym for homosexual too.
Words change over time, what gives LGBT groups the special right to deny that and try to stop it?

People, as I said, do use words like gaybo,gay,****** and dyke to make fun of gay people.
I have already discussed the origin and evolution of the word. Now you're just arguing your own prejudice.

Your last point I have massive problems with. Gay teenagers are exponentially more likely to kill themselves because they are being bullied or simply because they are gay and don't like it. Its called internalized homophobia. How can you be so callous? Maybe one day you will have a friend that kills themselves over being gay, then you'll think differently.

crayolastereo, my context point still holds, and the fact that it isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean it doesn't form part of living language - you yourself have admitted to the other usage of gay as being common.

Chuchoter

Deleted User wrote: »

crayolastereo, my context point still holds, and the fact that it isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean it doesn't form part of living language - you yourself have admitted to the other usage of gay as being common.

So I'm not allowed to be pissed off that what I am is being used as a synonym for all that is crap in the world?

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

So I'm not allowed to be pissed off that what I am is being used as a synonym for all that is crap in the world?

You're allowed to be, but others are allowed to disagree with you. What you can say is that it annoys you, what you can't say is that others are wrong if they continue to use it.

Chuchoter

Deleted User wrote: »

You're allowed to be, but others are allowed to disagree with you. What you can say is that it annoys you, what you can't say is that others are wrong if they continue to use it.

Well the main argument on the other side of the debate is I want to use it, I'm used to using it so I must be right, so I do think it is wrong and I think it is damaging to closeted gay teens, younger kids and the progress of acceptance of LGBTQ people in schools.

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

Well the main argument on the other side of the debate is I want to use it, I'm used to using it so I must be right

No, no it isn't. The main argument, as I've been saying, is that it's fine to use it because it's clear from the context what it is meant.

Edit: Although I may stop now, because it looks like I'm arguing for the disgusting practice of discrimination against homosexual people, when really I'm arguing a linguistic point.

Chuchoter

Deleted User wrote: »

No, no it isn't. The main argument, as I've been saying, is that it's fine to use it because it's clear from the context what it is meant.

Context=I'm used to using it in a certain way.

EDIT: No listen, I don't think you're coming at it from the same point tragedy is, I think we just disagree on context vs definition :P We shall agree to disagree.

crayolastereo

crayolastereo wrote: »

Context=I'm used to using it in a certain way.

Err... no.
Context. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

spurious

unknown13 wrote: »

I will believe this once it is backed up with a written, reliable and neutral source.

Read the Equality legislation. It's all in there in black and white.
Section 37


37.—(1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or


(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution. (my emphasis).

The vast majority of Irish schools (primary and secondary) are "under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values".

KnifeWRENCH

crayolastereo wrote: »

The man who started the It Gets Better project, Dan Savage, has made several racist comments in the past(he blamed prop 8 on black people), said the AIDS epidemic was over (well maybe for rich white guy, not sure about undereducated everyone else), biphobic and transphobic comments. He is not a very nice man, basically.

Ok, fair enough. Have to say I know nothing about this guy.

Still, I'd rather try and focus on the videos themselves rather than who's actually behind it.

Off the top of my head I can think of three rappers with clearly homophobic lyrics: Eminem, 50 cent and DMX, onto TV.

Ugly Betty-stereotypical gay characters
Corrie-stereotypical gay characters
Glee-stereotypical gay characters
Will and Grace-stereotypical gay characters
Sex and the City-stereotypical gay characters

Ah sorry. I thought you were referring specifically to Ireland when you were going on about homophobia being so prevalent. I agree with all of that, I just didn't reference it because I thought you were just on about Ireland.

Section 37 of the Equality Employment Act 1997 states that:

This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse.

Again, I don't disagree with any of the points your making here, I just didn't have the time to reference everything in my last post. It's unfortunate that religion has shaped our country to the extent that it has. I think religion should be completely separate from education, health and any area of government. Unfortunately, it's sort of ingrained in Irish society now and may be a long time before it disappears.

This is the same government that spent the last 13 years battling Dr. Lydia Foy over her right to be legally recognized as a woman is it?

That's a tricky issue, to be fair. Biologically, she was born a man and changing her birth cert is essentially changing history. I'm all for transgender rights but I can see where the other side is coming for here. I think it was more a case of not wanting to change a historical record than trying to deny her her identity in any other area of her life.

But it should come up. It shouldn't be OK that SPHE does not deal with alternate sexualities at all. It should not be OK that I hear teachers making homophobic comments fairly regularly, notices for BeLonGTo's services are taken down, plays are cancelled for gay characters. It shouldn't be OK that I don't exist in my school. Was it a non issue for the gay kids I assure you were getting bullied for it?

I agree, it should come up. Education in areas of mental and sexual health is poor at best in Irish schools. Now I don't think there was any issue with homophobia in my school; there were a few gay students but I never saw or heard of them being bullied specifically for it. Sounds like you came from a less accepting background though, which sucks.

KnifeWrench I'm not attacking you, assuming you are straight, I don't expect you to know any of this.

I'm actually bisexual. I've been with my boyfriend for nearly four months now. I'm no stranger to any of the issues you mentioned, I just didn't have the time to mention it all in one post. (It was late and I was tired.)

Essentially, I agree with almost everything you've written.

Chuchoter

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. Have to say I know nothing about this guy.

Still, I'd rather try and focus on the videos themselves rather than who's actually behind it.


Ah sorry. I thought you were referring specifically to Ireland when you were going on about homophobia being so prevalent. I agree with all of that, I just didn't reference it because I thought you were just on about Ireland.



Again, I don't disagree with any of the points your making here, I just didn't have the time to reference everything in my last post. It's unfortunate that religion has shaped our country to the extent that it has. I think religion should be completely separate from education, health and any area of government. Unfortunately, it's sort of ingrained in Irish society now and may be a long time before it disappears.



That's a tricky issue, to be fair. Biologically, she was born a man and changing her birth cert is essentially changing history. I'm all for transgender rights but I can see where the other side is coming for here. I think it was more a case of not wanting to change a historical record than trying to deny her her identity in any other area of her life.


I agree, it should come up. Education in areas of mental and sexual health is poor at best in Irish schools. Now I don't think there was any issue with homophobia in my school; there were a few gay students but I never saw or heard of them being bullied specifically for it. Sounds like you came from a less accepting background though, which sucks.


I'm actually bisexual. I've been with my boyfriend for nearly four months now. I'm no stranger to any of the issues you mentioned, I just didn't have the time to mention it all in one post. (It was late and I was tired.)

Essentially, I agree with almost everything you've written.

Well thats cool:). Actually I'm sorry for making so many assumptions about you :P Whenever I get onto these kinds of topics in real life and the internet I kind of go mad! :P

wayhey

http://www.gaydoctorsireland.ie/about-us/faq

I was amazed that you could discriminate on those lines. Who gives a **** who your doctor sleeps with? I'd rather a skilled gay surgeon than a lesser-skilled straight one.

Aren't we all getting a bit caught-up in this campaign on the usage of the word? I think it's more important to empower LGBT teens with pride and self-confidence through organisations and educate all teenagers on LGBT issues. TBH I can understand that the usage of "gay" might annoy gay people. But I really don't think that is the final straw that pushes them over the edge, into depression and tragically sometimes, suicide. It's a bit naiive to empower all that to one word.

It's attitudes and policies that really need to change.

Pygmalion

wayhey wrote: »

http://www.gaydoctorsireland.ie/about-us/faq

I was amazed that you could discriminate on those lines. Who gives a **** who your doctor sleeps with? I'd rather a skilled gay surgeon than a lesser-skilled straight one.

On the other hand, if someone is in the habit of turning down skilled surgeons for unskilled surgeons maybe this problem can sort itself out >.> (too far?).

Aren't we all getting a bit caught-up in this campaign on the usage of the word? I think it's more important to empower LGBT teens with pride and self-confidence through organisations and educate all teenagers on LGBT issues. TBH I can understand that the usage of "gay" might annoy gay people. But I really don't think that is the final straw that pushes them over the edge, into depression and tragically sometimes, suicide. It's a bit naiive to empower all that to one word.

tbh I don't really have a problem with the word in some contexts, like "this assignment is pretty gay" or anything, but to say it's not commonly used in an offensive way is pretty wrong.
In some cases (mostly in secondary schools) it seems that any guy who isn't a stereotypical "man" (read: Playing sports, talking about cars and harassing women) gets labelled a gay/fag/queer/homo etc.
In these cases the intention quite obviously is to portray the person as being a less worthy person by comparing them to homosexuals, and this is exactly what makes it hard for people to come out.

People might not always be using the words in a way meant to offend gay people, maybe it's just a habit they picked up and they actually have no problem with gays, but you can't simply say "Look at that ****ing fag over there" and then expect people to magically be aware that you're actually very open-minded and have no problem with gay people.

Davidius

I use both the word 'bastard' and 'gay' to describe people and situations negatively (respectively) even though I have no problem with illegitimate children and homosexuals. I would have thought the context was more important than just the technical definition of the word.

SarahBeep!

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

Conversely, I don't believe it's remotely reasonable to assume that every gay man should be supposed as having AIDs. Statistics can be sorted out pretty quickly by way of a blood test- if you're totally clean of any disease, and still can't give blood because of your sexuality, there's something wrong. It's a bit like saying "You're black and so you're incapable of doing as well at school as a white person. (I'm sorry, it's true, good ol' statistics have robbed you of any individuality, so it's probably safer if you just sit at the back and shut up)".

Last year my university asked the IBTS to send a representative to us at class reps council before we would allow them back on campus. We had previously banned them due to discrimination.

Does anyone here know how long it takes to get an accurate result from a HIV test? Months.
When a bag of blood is donated it's given to a person in need within 3 days (approx.) and by then at least HALF of the blood is dead. Useless. We dont have months to waste testing blood that will be useless by the time its even preliminary tested.

Do I like this? Of course I don't.
Does it bother me it cuts a huge chunk of people who can donate? Definately.
Is there anything that can be done about this? Not right now.

Tragedy wrote: »

Why should the majority be forced to learn it for a tiny minority? I have and had no interest in learning about it in school, why should I have to to suit the minority?

In Junior Cert RE every student is required to study another religion. The choice is Islam or Judaism. Are they not both minorities in Ireland?
I think the majority of a population should be made aware of the minority because it's easy to forget they exist, regardless of what makes them a minority, age, race, sexual preference, income. With all the wasted time in SPHE and scholls where Religion isnt an examined LC subject they could definitely find time to squeeze in few classes about people who have a non-hetero sexual preference.
But they dont bother. Shock horror.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I'm actually bisexual. I've been with my boyfriend for nearly four months now.

Awwwwwwwwww

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

Sure that's grand then, being turned down for a job because of your sexual orientation is fine, as long as they can't fire people who slip through the interview or choose to hide it when applying for jobs.

Where did I say or imply that? Please quote me saying that, as I'm tired of people on this thread making up things I said to suit their argument and then refusing to actually quote it.
Crayola implied that the vast majority of schools and hospitals discriminate based on sexual orientation and said the legislation meant that people with a non hetero orientation could be fired at any time if it was found out. This isn't true. None of it is true, and it's important to correct stupid **** like that before more people believe something so blatantly made up.

Grand so, people of different faiths (or those with none) get discriminated against more often than gay people in this case.
Surely that means discrimination against gay people is non-existent or should be allowed (as should discrimination against those outside the Catholic faith I guess).

Again, do quote me saying or implying any of that instead of just pretending that I did because it suits.

crayolastereo wrote: »

Also you are completely right, gay used to mean happy, it then ACTUALLY evolved to mean homosexual, and you never hear it used to mean happy anymore.

Actually, it meant both happy and gay together for a long time. It never "evolved".
It had one meaning, then it had two meanings, then the original meaning fell by the wayside, now it has two meanings again.

It's so ridiculously hypocritical to complain about the meaning of "gay" being subsumed into something else by society as a whole, as it's how gay=homosexual originally started.

If I look it up in the dictionary, I will find it means joyful, showy and homosexual, but not bad. So they are misusing the word.

Do you have any idea of how linguistics and languages work? Language changes over time, and language is defined by those who use it. Not dictionaries. How do you think pejoratives enter the dictionary? They come into widespread use and are then included, not the other way around.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0408/1224267892535.html
Hence the great lack of out gay doctors and teachers. There are 80 members of the gay doctors union. That should say something, because there are more than 80 gay doctors in the country

Eh? That doesn't even mention doctors. So where are you getting "great lack of out gay doctors" from?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they're actually mature enough to not want to label and define their whole life by their sexual orientation? Why should being gay make you want to join a gay union? It's juvenile and immature when being gay has absolutely nothing to do with your work.

And yes, I've worked in a religious PVH(public voluntary hospital) alongise gay doctors, nurses and clerical staff, no-one gives a hoot because we're all here to do a job.
My sister also happens to be in HR specialising in EU human resource law and industrial relations, so I'm fairly sure I both know more and have more personal knowledge of the lack of discrimination against employees in a Medical setting.
Clear enough?

Also, since this is clearly something you strongly believe in and have researched - how many cases of people being discriminated using Section 37 can you find?

I learn about disabled people. I don't know a single disabled person, but I think it is important for me to understand the issues around it. I don't smoke or drink, but other people in my class do. I do not want to deprive them of education relevant to them.

I didn't learn about disabled people or other religions(aside from a class or two in 6th year on Islam). I don't see how that makes someone better or worse, what exactly is a class meant to teach you about LGBT issues? That it's ok for someone to be LGBT and you shouldn't insult or bully them over it? A class won't do that, a class will do the opposite.

I agree that the LGBTQ community creates some of its own problems, personally I think Pride is a bit of a shambles, but there are issues that need to be tackled and if we don't tackle them nobody else will do it for us.

I know a few(very openly, flagrant one might say) gay people in college and still in touch with a few from work, I don't know any of them that have been discriminated against in either work or college. Not one. None of them have a problem with me saying gay around them outside work/college. Or telling them they're being gay(rather than homosexual). But then, they're all interested in living their life and not finding offense to be angry and upset about where it doesn't exist. Mature people one might say.

Hence why I find the whole bleating about not being able to be a doctor because of your sexual orientation so offensive and wanting to ban the word "gay" as a synonym for bad.

People, as I said, do use words like gaybo,gay,****** and dyke to make fun of gay people.

People, as I said, don't use the word gay to make fun of gay people in my experience.

I have already discussed the origin and evolution of the word. Now you're just arguing your own prejudice.

You didn't discuss anything, you told us what it meant, where it came from and that we shouldn't use it. You happened to be wrong about pretty much all of it.

Your last point I have massive problems with. Gay teenagers are exponentially more likely to kill themselves because they are being bullied or simply because they are gay and don't like it. Its called internalized homophobia. How can you be so callous? Maybe one day you will have a friend that kills themselves over being gay, then you'll think differently.

How is it callous? We can't censor the whole of society because a tiny minority have a problem with a word for no good external reason. We can't, and we shouldn't be held hostage by people's internal hang-ups and problems.
And thank god, so far we haven't been.

Have you heard of any case where a gay person killed themself because they couldn't stand people using gay as a synonym for bad? No? You're going to tell us that it's a factor though? But you can't actually prove that it ever has or ever will be one, because it's basically unprovable?
Ah, right.

We should definitely ban the use of a word based on that.

That's progressive, modern, non-discriminatory and intelligent. It's all those things.

Mod Edit: This post has received a yellow card Warning for the following reason: Breach of Peace.

sock puppet

crayolastereo wrote: »

Ugly Betty-stereotypical gay characters
Corrie-stereotypical gay characters
Glee-stereotypical gay characters
Will and Grace-stereotypical gay characters
Sex and the City-stereotypical gay characters

Although you also have non stereotypical characters like Sian and Sophie on Corrie and Dr Torrez and Arizona on Greys Anatomy, they are always femme and in any case are outnumbered by the number of stereotypes on TV/Movies

This is more lazy writing rather than any actual prejudice. Look at how black characters are often portrayed. Grandparents are usually senile, rich people are snobby, poor people are uneducated, teenagers are ignorant, and every single person in the world who's over 25 and still single is disatisfied with their life.

Scriptwriters for programmes such as Glee know it's not exactly going to get them nominated for the Nobel Prize. You could point to much more glaring flaws in the script than characters conforming to a few stereotypes.

D4RK ONION

Davidius wrote: »

I use both the word 'bastard' and 'gay' to describe people and situations negatively (respectively) even though I have no problem with illegitimate children and homosexuals. I would have thought the context was more important than just the technical definition of the word.

Yeah, my group and I would also use the term gay a lot in passing. If you actually think that I am conjuring a hate of homosexuals in my head when I assign this term to anything, then that says more about you than I. I have no problem with any group of people at all. I don't really care what minority you belong to. If you're a nice person, then you're fine by me.

Unknown, that Act doesn't apply to areas run under the Catholic Patronage eg Most primary schools. I could be discriminated against for my religious beliefs for instance (or lack of more correctly).

Chuchoter

Tragedy, you obviously have no idea what you are on about, so just stop. Every other person in this thread arguing against me at least has a few valid arguments, you're just nitpicking to try to salvage whatever argument you have left

Pygmalion is saying that you said section 37 was mostly for other faiths, which sounds like you are implying there is no discrimination towards gay people.

I have gone through the gay doctors thing, as have several other posters. That particular link covered teachers, here is a link for gay doctors
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0427/1224269149408.html

You are completely and utterly missing the point with section 37. We, as a modern, European country, should not have legislation that means it is possible for you to be fired/not hired for being gay

So we should just get rid of anti-racism, anti disabilty discrimination education altogether? It only makes things worse? You really want to argue that?

I don't know the gay people you know (judging by the things you've said here, I highly doubt you have gay friends. You probably just see them from across the room) . If they are not angry they are either stupid or they don't care. They should care they are second class citizens. I want to be a doctor. I am studying for 560 points in the LC. I hate that when I become a doctor and if I register a partnership with the person I am in love with, my employer will be within their rights to fire me. It does matter that I am going to have to leave this country to live my life the way I want to.

I understand the context argument, but frankly I think its wrong that I am a synonym for all that is crap in the world, as I have said. Thats not OK with me and really if you have gay friends, it shouldn't be OK with you either.

I'm going to tell you that LGBTQ suicide, self harm, drug use and homelessness are down to homophobia, parental rejection and bullying. The use of the word gay for bad is a symptom of this.

Banjo Fella

Deleted User wrote: »

Edit: Although I may stop now, because it looks like I'm arguing for the disgusting practice of discrimination against homosexual people, when really I'm arguing a linguistic point.

Yep, I can definitely see what you mean. Using "gay" to say that something is bad is just another, separate usage of the word, so you shouldn't get annoyed at people for using it when they don't mean any harm.

What does annoy me, though, is the origin of that usage of "gay". I'm guessing that the word's etymology evolved in this order; first it meant "happy and carefree", then it also meant "homosexual", and eventually it began to mean "bad" as well. There's really only one reason why the word would take on that last meaning; because of homophobia, and it's horrible to see that kind of bigotry so blatantly rooted in the language we use. It probably doesn't bother everyone, because words are just words... but it's still so unfair.

Tragedy

crayolastereo wrote: »

Tragedy, you obviously have no idea what you are on about, so just stop. Every other person in this thread arguing against me at least has a few valid arguments, you're just nitpicking to try to salvage whatever argument you have left

Really? way to argue my points, don't actually bother arguing, tell me I said things I didn't(did you forget me asking you to quote where I was meant to have said something) and then do the whole "everyone else but you is ok" trick.

I'm sorry, but you come across as a child who just learned of a horrible injustice, did zero research, didn't apply any logic or rational thinking, and instead decided to FIGHT THE POWER.

Otherwise you'd be able to back up all your assertions and downright lies.

Can you still not find any cases of Section 37 being used to discriminate against personnel in Hospitals?

That's right, you can't. And I'm the one nitpicking with no valid argument.

Pygmalion is saying that you said section 37 was mostly for other faiths, which sounds like you are implying there is no discrimination towards gay people.

No it really doesn't, and since you didn't bother to quote what I said, as again, you're lying, here's what I actually said.
"Thirdly, this section targets people of different faiths far more than it does LGBT community, specifically because it qualifies the right to discriminate sexual orientation with "that the relevant characteristic of D is or amounts to an occupational qualification for the post in question.""

Ah I see, I'm just nitpicking when you lie about my posts.

I have gone through the gay doctors thing, as have several other posters. That particular link covered teachers, here is a link for gay doctors
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0427/1224269149408.html

Again, you link something and quite clearly haven't read it.
That's a news article about Gay Doctors Ireland being set up. Nowhere does it mention, discrimination, particular cases, or the fact that Doctors are being discriminated against based on Section 37.

Nowhere.

Sorry, I'm nitpicking again right?

You are completely and utterly missing the point with section 37. We, as a modern, European country, should not have legislation that means it is possible for you to be fired/not hired for being gay

I'm not missing the point, you are.
I never argued that Section 37 was good, proper and should be kept. Please quote me saying that.

I pointed out that you were completely wrong in implying/saying that there was vast, widespread discrimination in hospitals and schools due to Section 37.

And you are wrong, and in however many posts since, you haven't posted a single thing to disprove that - you've just lied about my posts, misconstrued my arguments, and ended up resorting to "I'm not going to even deign to reply because...well I can't".

So we should just get rid of anti-racism, anti disabilty discrimination education altogether? It only makes things worse? You really want to argue that?

I don't know the gay people you know (judging by the things you've said here, I highly doubt you have gay friends. You probably just see them from across the room) .

Nice, very classy. Can't argue like an adult, so you result to this kind of stuff.

If they are not angry they are either stupid or they don't care. They should care they are second class citizens.

That's great. A 17 year old(or 18 or whatever) on the internet is telling every gay person in Ireland that they're stupid unless they get offended by the word gay, and that they're second class citizens.

I want to be a doctor. I am studying for 560 points in the LC. I hate that when I become a doctor and if I register a partnership with the person I am in love with, my employer will be within their rights to fire me.

Firstly, as has been posted several times, they can't fire you for it.
Secondly, as has been posted before, they have to present a case for your sexual orientation will undermine the religious ethos of the institution.
Since, realistically, it won't - they can't and they don't discriminate on this. They certainly don't fire people.
That's why you can't seem to find many(any?) cases of people being discriminated under Section 37

It does matter that I am going to have to leave this country to live my life the way I want to.

Eh, no you won't? The only person persecuting you for your beliefs so far, seems to be yourself.

I understand the context argument, but frankly I think its wrong that I am a synonym for all that is crap in the world, as I have said.

Now you're saying "I think it's wrong".
Before you were saying "it is wrong, it should be banned"
Do you see why the former is more mature?

Thats not OK with me and really if you have gay friends, it shouldn't be OK with you either.

I'm sorry, who appointed you Fascist Dictator for life?

I'm going to tell you that LGBTQ suicide, self harm, drug use and homelessness are down to homophobia, parental rejection and bullying. The use of the word gay for bad is a symptom of this.

No it isn't, and you still haven't posted a shred of evidence to say it is.

Pussy. Means a coward, does that means womens vaginas are cowards?
Suck. We all know what it means. Does that mean people who perform fellatio are stupid losers?
Do I need to go on and on and on?
Nah?
PS: It isn't nitpicking when I quote your entire post and reply to every point, calling it nitpicking in an attempt to not respond because you have nothing to back up your arguments, is frankly, embarassing.

Mod Edit: This post has received a red card Infraction point for the following reason: bullying.

Tragedy

Ah, look what I found. An Article by the CEO of the Equality Authority from December 2005.

The Employment Equality Acts also include an exemption that allows religious, educational or medical institutions which are under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes, or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values, to take action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution. This has not yet been tested in casework under the Acts. However, it has been identified by gay and lesbian organisations as a significant barrier to gay, bisexual and lesbian people using the equality legislation to address experiences of discrimination.

So, are you still arguing that you can't get a job as a Doctor in Ireland Crayola.
Seriously?

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

Where did I say or imply that? Please quote me saying that, as I'm tired of people on this thread making up things I said to suit their argument and then refusing to actually quote it.

I apologise entirely, it's disgraceful stuff, no-one would ever make up stuff about another poster and what they said/implied to suit themselves.

Crayola implied that the vast majority of schools and hospitals discriminate based on sexual orientation

Oh wait, you did it here.

So, are you still arguing that you can't get a job as a Doctor in Ireland Crayola.
Seriously?

And here.

Yes, I did re-read through her posts looking for where she said these things, what she actually said was that there is legislation that allows them to do it, she never said that the majority (or even a large amount) make use of this, just that it can be done and that's bad.

Anyway I'm bowing out of this as I'm really not bothered arguing at this time, might make another appearance at some point.
Feel free to point out how you totally won this argument and I'm leaving because I've been harshly defeated.

Chuchoter

I'm going to call it a day as well. Plenty of information has been posted throughout this thread to back up my arguments by myself and other posters (check the link posted by wahey, tragedy). You're just choosing to selectively read parts and not others.

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

Oh wait, you did it here.

What did you think this meant?
"This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse."

And here.

And this?
"It does matter that I am going to have to leave this country to live my life the way I want to."

Yes, I did re-read through her posts looking for where she said these things, what she actually said was that there is legislation that allows them to do it, she never said that the majority (or even a large amount) make use of this, just that it can be done and that's bad.

Implication?

Anyway I'm bowing out of this as I'm really not bothered arguing at this time, might make another appearance at some point.
Feel free to point out how you totally won this argument and I'm leaving because I've been harshly defeated.

Tragedy wrote:

Where did I say or imply that? Please quote me saying that, as I'm tired of people on this thread making up things I said to suit their argument and then refusing to actually quote it.
Crayola implied that the vast majority of schools and hospitals discriminate based on sexual orientation and said the legislation meant that people with a non hetero orientation could be fired at any time if it was found out. This isn't true. None of it is true, and it's important to correct stupid **** like that before more people believe something so blatantly made up.

Thanks Pygmalion.
Thanks.

crayolastereo wrote: »

I'm going to call it a day as well. Plenty of information has been posted throughout this thread to back up my arguments by myself and other posters (check the link posted by wahey, tragedy). You're just choosing to selectively read parts and not others.

You didn't back up your interpretation of Section 37.(I did, mine)
You didn't back up your assertions that Doctors are discriminated against in Hospitals under the auspices of Section 37.(I did, mine)
You didn't back up your assertion that you(personally) can't get a job as a Doctor in this country at all as a homosexual.(I did, mine)
You didn't back up your theory on how the word gay evolved.
I could go on, but I won't.

I'll conclude with: People like you do far more harm to the LGBT cause/community than actual homophobes do. Homophobes only ever serve to show off their own ignorance and immaturity, your militant persecution complex is far more insidious and damaging.


PS: When you go on to debating properly, you'll learn not to imply that people who disagree with you are homophobes because it's easy and you can't come up with anything better. Personally, I can't wait for that day. I'm secure in my sexuality(whatever it may be, because you don't have a clue but are happy to brand me a homophobe), I'm secure in my beliefs, I'll debate and argue with anyone and if you want to look at when this argument started descending into a slagging match, look at your getting personal because someone had the temerity to disagree with you. Oh no.

Mod Edit: This post has received a red car Infraction point for the following reasons: personalise remarks, flame-bating, bullying.

Pygmalion

Tragedy wrote: »

What did you think this meant?
"This basically says that I can be fired for being a lesbian. I want to be a doctor and work in a hospital, a large percentage have some kind of religious tie. Schools are even worse."

Look up the word "can" in a dictionary, then re-read what you just wrote.

And this?
"It does matter that I am going to have to leave this country to live my life the way I want to."

The sentence beforehand was "I hate that when I become a doctor and if I register a partnership with the person I am in love with, my employer will be within their rights to fire me"
She doesn't want to live in a situation where her employer is "within their rights" to fire her over it, she never said they'd exercise these rights, but the fact that they could if they chose to is a pretty good reason to dislike it.
Admittedly it may or may not hold up in court, but the way the law is interpreted implies it would, and until it's actually tested in court no-one can say.

I know I said I wasn't going to keep responding, but clearly that didn't work out very well.

Edit: When I say stuff like "She doesn't want to" I'm talking about how I interpreted her posts, obviously I'm not her so can't speak for her. Just want to point that out.

Tragedy

Pygmalion wrote: »

Look up the word "can" in a dictionary, then re-read what you just wrote.

When I read it, I read it as a series of linked statements. I think that that is fair enough?

i.e. I can be fired for being a lesbian, I want to be a doctor which means I'll work in a hospital in which most of them can fire me for being a lesbian - surely with the implication that this does happen in them.
Otherwise the statement is completely pointless, it doesn't matter if 5 hospitals, 50 hospitals or 500 hospitals CAN do a thing if none of them do it - either it matters that any can, or you're implying that those that can, do.

The sentence beforehand was "I hate that when I become a doctor and if I register a partnership with the person I am in love with, my employer will be within their rights to fire me"
She doesn't want to live in a situation where her employer is "within their rights" to fire her over it, she never said they'd exercise these rights, but the fact that they could if they chose to is a pretty good reason to dislike it.

That has nothing to do with what she said though.
She said she can't live her life the way she wants to as a Doctor in Ireland.
She didn't say "I don't want to be in employment in a situation where I can be fired for my sexual orientation under Section 37, even though there is no record of any Doctor ever being discriminated against under it".

There's a massive, yawning gulf between the two.

Admittedly it may or may not hold up in court, but the way the law is interpreted implies it would, and until it's actually tested in court no-one can say.

How many times; The law only legalises discrimination at the interview stage, and only when there is a prima facie case that the applicants sexual orientation would:
A) Undermine a religious ethos of an institution(simply being gay in your private life wouldn't suffice for this)
"would be materially different if filled by a person not having that relevant characteristic"(i.e. they would have to prove that being your sexual orientation makes you less qualified)

This is a stupid law, but it's one that's impossible to enforce(as in, enforce legalised discrimination based on sexual orientation. Hence why no case law). That's why it's important to counter people in this thread who've only just learned about it reading it completely the wrong way and thinking that there is widespread legalalised discrimination against non-hetero people.