Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

david75

This site is actually quite alarming.
These people are really crazy and have it in for David Norris in a big way. A lot of it is quite libelous too.

http://www.davidnorris4president.com/index.html

But this place is even worse. Talk about misinformed willfull ignorance
http://www.campaignforconscience.org/

Can someone explain these religious nuts to me please? they always bang on about Leviticus and God being anti-gay but the same book has this in it.
Leviticus 19:18, "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Are they just crazy angry people who need a target?

JohnathanM

God damn it, I thought this was about Chuck.

MickShamrock

JohnathanM wrote: »

God damn it, I thought this was about Chuck.

Chuck Norris as President. We can dream. :pac:

GLaDOS

See this encourages me to vote for him just to piss them off

Teferi

I was going to vote for him anyway. Now I just wish I had two votes that I could use to annoy them. This is Westboro Baptist Church-like rubbish.

Nodin

They must reckon he's in with a chance.

All the more reason to vote for him, I reckon.

flyton5

There'll always be people like that around but i'm sure he's well used to it by now. Not that he SHOULD have to be but it's a sad fact of life that it just is that way. He'll take it in his stride i'm sure. In fact, I bet he'll take great pleasure from the outcry caused by these bible bashing homophobes if he wins.


Pretty lucky he doesn't have Fred Phelps living here actually...

Links234

david75 wrote: »

But this place is even worse. Talk about misinformed willfull ignorance
http://www.campaignforconscience.org/

civil partnership "erodes freedom of conscience"? WHAT!?

this site makes me want to vomit

The Waltzing Consumer

This is some crazy family, kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church, not any organisation.

They are from Castlebar. Here is an article from the Irish Times about them
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0710/1224274400543.html

Bit sad really, I thought Ireland did not have these inbred religious nuts.

prinz

david75 wrote: »

Talk about misinformed willfull ignorance

There's a lot of that going around.

david75

It's so completely ignorant and misinformed it's laughable but it's kinda frightening too. They'll have traction somewhere on this island yanno?

i Hope Norris gets the presidency. If bertie runs, Norris will definitely get the presidency.

bitemybanger

I'd vote for chuck Norris for president...really

david75

there wouldnt be an election oif Chuck was running, he'd just make us convert to a monarchy state and hed make himself king. end of.

Scarydoll

david75 wrote: »

Can someone explain these religious nuts to me please?

The answer is in the question.

CathyMoran

Disgusting - those web sites must be a joke (and not a funny one at that). Are there really such sick minded people in the coutry still.

Norris was around TCD a bit when I was there and I had the fortune to meet him - it would be hard to find a more elequent, witty and intelligent man around.

I must admit that I would vote for him if he ran.

AnonoBoy

CathyMoran wrote: »

Disgusting - those web sites must be a joke (and not a funny one at that). Are there really such sick minded people in the coutry still.

I'd love to think they were. Sadly, they're not.

However I don't think anyone should vote for Norris purely to shut up the bigots. You should vote for him if you feel that he's the best person for the job.

Shutting up the bigots is just a delicious bonus.

stevoslice

i wouldn't vote for david norris tbh, last thing this country needs is another token president pushed to show how far modern ireland has come. Now don't get me wrong, the two marys were great, but i've strongly disagreed with norris opinion before on certain topics, namely he would like to see ireland rejoin the commonwealth, he was on the afternoon show, last year i think it was.

Saying that i would definitely not vote for bertie. Looks like i may have to spoil my vote... Again... :-P

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

did he really say he admired the classical idea of manboy love?

Aldebaran

He's got my vote anyway.

Yakult

Their main argument seems to be about him being gay. Does that really matter?

Someone should troll the **** out of that website.

mikemac

Michael D for President

Has my vote

WindSock

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Their main argument seems to be about him being gay. Does that really matter?

But he eats da poo poo!

prinz

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

did he really say he admired the classical idea of manboy love?

It would appear so. Although he later backtracked.

zimovain

CathyMoran wrote: »

Disgusting - those web sites must be a joke (and not a funny one at that). Are there really such sick minded people in the coutry still.

Norris was around TCD a bit when I was there and I had the fortune to meet him - it would be hard to find a more elequent, witty and intelligent man around.

I must admit that I would vote for him if he ran.

+1 to that, he's a national treasure in my eyes.

AnonoBoy

prinz wrote: »

It would appear so. Although he later backtracked.

He said something about younger men having great experiences with older men didn't he? If by younger men he meant 18/19 year olds then he's just talking about consenting adults really. He wasn't advocating sex with minors was he?

Ronnie Wood gets away with it in a heterosexual manner.


I only vaguely remember the Norris comments so feel free to correct me.

Max Power1

Aldebaran wrote: »

He's got my vote anyway.

+1

I normally wouldnt bother voting in a presidential election as its largely a figurehead role with few real tasks.

However now I will vote for norris.

Chuchoter

thebhoy wrote: »

i wouldn't vote for david norris tbh, last thing this country needs is another token president pushed to show how far modern ireland has come. Now don't get me wrong, the two marys were great, but i've strongly disagreed with norris opinion before on certain topics, namely he would like to see ireland rejoin the commonwealth, he was on the afternoon show, last year i think it was.

Saying that i would definitely not vote for bertie. Looks like i may have to spoil my vote... Again... :-P

Actually I completely agree with you here. Although I appreciate all the wonderful work the man has done, he tries to hard to be a comedian and a character, and a lot of what he says is simply unbecoming of someone who wants to be the face of our country. I would also be incredibly wary of tokenism. I don't want everyone to go "Sure we have a gay president, gays do great in our society" and this is simply not the case. We have huge problems, not only marriage and civil partnership issues, that affect the LGBT community in Ireland and have not just disappeared because we are 'modern' now.

Wertz

thebhoy wrote: »

Now don't get me wrong, the two marys were great,

Were they? Robinson was great, McAleese was and is meh.

I don't think Norris would represent a token president merely because of his sexuality. He's a well read and eloquent individual and whilst I may also disagree on his views on the commonwealth, I think the level of intelligence he would bring to the role is worth voting for him alone...any token value construed by those on foreign soil looking on is merely a bonus.

As for these websites, nothing the religious right do in this country surprises me...their views on homosexuality, transsexuality, same sex marriages, abortion and whatever else they have a problem with is there for all to see if you listen in to any local radio station in the mornings. Ask the same lot about their attitude to child molestation in the church and they'll make an excuse or divert the topic.

I'd vote for Norris anyhow...pissing these pricks off is icing on the cake if he won...

Cat Melodeon

info@campaignforconscience.org

It would be a terrible shame if this email address somehow ended up getting spammed.

prinz

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He said something about younger men having great experiences with older men didn't he? If by younger men he meant 18/19 year olds then he's just talking about consenting adults really. He wasn't advocating sex with minors was he?

It certainly appears extremely questionable on first reading referring to the possible positive nature in ancient Greece of an 'older man introducing younger men or boy to adult life', he later said he was referring to people above the age of consent.

Although there is merit in other things he said in the same article on the same subject he should really come out and clairfy his position before going for President IMO.

That said he's probably the best of the bad bunch who seem to have been linked to the job already. Personally anyone getting the job should get it on the back of their experience and professional capabilities rather than on their personal lives. Norris might be a world class Joycean scholar but IMO it should be going to people qualified, through law, international politics, international organisations etc.

mikemac

Here is the article

In terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think there can be something to be said for it. And in terms of North African experience this is endemic.
Now again, this is not something that appeals to me, although when I was younger it would most certainly have appealed to me in the sense that I would have greatly relished the prospect of an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities, and treating me with affection and teaching me about life - yes, I think that would be lovely; I would have enjoyed that."...

"But I think there is complete and utter hysteria about this subject, and there is also confusion between ... paedophilia and pederasty..."[David Norris clarified this later, explaining that genital sexual penetration of juveniles of either sex would be inappropiate and harmful]...

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

The right of unfettered sexual activity guided by the principle of mutual consent would be Norris's perception of the way things should be, with a bar only on intimidation, bullying or bribery. He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable...

Cat Melodeon

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

RefulgentGnomon

He was born in Leopoldville

Nijmegen

Norris did back that poet down in Nepal.

That being said, at least Norris's arguments have nuance.

These lads are more like a massive battering ram with a bible on top.

Folks like these are what got us having big rows over whether or not even married couples could have condoms, women obligated to have sex with their husbands and no option of divorce.

They're a throwback and ought to be pitied. Few right thinking people would support their extreme views.

Elle Collins

"In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age". When I asked about incest, he hesitated, and concluded that in the case of girls a case could be made for a ban, as possible resulting pregnancy might be genetically undesirable...


He sounds like a sick fuk to me. :mad:

Einhard

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Chuchoter

Einhard wrote: »

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Yeah I'm not seeing too many nuances either. I'm mostly just seeing him say sex with minors should be legal.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

I have to say that, while I like Norris and agree that he's witty and genial and all those things, the comments attributed to him in the Magill article certainly raise a few questions, as does his rush to defend Cathal O' Searcaigh. Perhaps, you could explain the nuances to those of us who can't discern them?

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

strobe

crayolastereo wrote: »

Yeah I'm not seeing too many nuances either. I'm mostly just seeing him say sex with minors should be legal.

Ahh that's where you're going wrong. He's not saying sex with minors is fine. He's saying foreplay with minors is fine. Which I think we can all agree on. :eek::eek::eek:

What a creep. Wouldn't let him babysit for me that's for sure.

Snakeblood

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Unfortunately the nuances of what Norris was saying are likely to be ignored in favour of "OMG!1!!! Norris likes little boys!"

To be honest, I'm not seeing very much in favour of Norris here.

"The right of unfettered sexual activity guided by the principle of mutual consent would be Norris's perception of the way things should be, with a bar only on intimidation, bullying or bribery. He did not appear to endorse any minimum age or endure any protest that a child was not capable of informed consent. "The law in this sphere should take in to account consent rather than age".

So if you can persuade a five year old it should be ok to bang him/her, it's ok.

edit:
Maybe he specified some age limit I'm not aware he did in some other bit of the article.

thebigbiffo

hmmmm. i'm not quite sure about his use of examples - a person of authority with a hand down a boys pants is fine compared to a child killer, they're both bad for society.

i kind of see where he's coming from alll the same - it's just a very very difficult point to articulate without people branding you a peado, so i wont even begin to try

bronte

prinz wrote: »

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

The_Minister

Tbh, I never approved of Norris' support of a certain poet, but what really bothers me is that I'm not sure he has the dignity or gravitas for our President.

Foreign leaders all meet our head of state, and this country can be embarassing enough (though I love it) without having to worry about Norris cracking masturbation jokes to the UN.

markphillips

Wasn't this article written around the time the whole age of consent thing was in the papers and many people were saying there should be some lee-way given? Just saying, in case that adds some context.

And I don't think he was saying groping is fine! He said that perving on kids and sexually assaulting them are at "different ends of the spectrum". He didn't say that "spectrum" is a good one!

I think his words were poorly chosen but he has never campaigned or spoken for the abolition of the age of consent. He has also never been accused of any wrong-doing. I think he was trying to say there are different levels of abuse in that interview, but should have certainly been more clear.

Saying he was endorsing sex with minors is wide of the mark IMO.

prinz

bronte wrote: »

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

Did I say they were? :rolleyes:

oppenheimer1

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the first paragraph of the quoted Magill article state that he thinks theres merit in the idea of allowing (legalising?) homosexual sexual relationships of the type that were found in ancient Greece, between boys and older men. He also states that at this time in his life he wouldn't want to take a younger boy under his wing but when he was younger would have liked an older man.


For such an intelligent man one has to wonder at the wisdom of coming out with the statement above or his defence of O'Searcaigh. Nuanced or not, he must have known it would be interpreted that he didn't see anything wrong with sexual relationships between boys and men. It was stupid of anyone who has ideas of getting elected in possibly the most conservative country in europe.

Would I vote for him, it depends on who the other candidates are of course. Joycean scholar or not, I don't think hes particularly qualified for the job and would I would vote for a Constitutional lawyer. The two Marys haven't done a bad job, so theres a lot to be said for them (lawyers that is). That said I wouldn't vote for Bacik no matter what.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Must be the same sort of thing as when people congratulate Stephen Fry for condemning the RCC for child abuse, and excuse Fry's own earlier play which involves a male teacher's sexual interest in a young teen boy. 'Pleasure lies between the thighs of a young boy' so it went..Must be nuanced.

Something like that could well be nuanced. I don't know if the male teacher was shown as predatory or not. Was the male teacher the villain of the piece? Also, was this play actually exploiting children or encouraging\facilitating abuse?

I don't know, but I do know nuance comes into things more than picking a couple of lines out of context.

For instance: Silence of the Lambs
Hannibal Lecter: A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
- Lacking nuance, this is obviously encouraging people to eat census takers, and also the drinking of chianti.

bronte

prinz wrote: »

Did I say they were? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

No you criticised people for supporting Stephen Fry and condemning the oh-so-delightful Catholic Church.

Einhard

bronte wrote: »

Oh yes, because plays and actual child abuse are the same. :rolleyes:

I don't think that was the point, but rather that Fry condemned child abuse, and yet wrote a play in which it was portrayed as a positive sexual experience.

bronte

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think that was the point, but rather that Fry condemned child abuse, and yet wrote a play in which it was portrayed as a positive sexual experience.

Do you think he himself agrees it's a positive sexual experience?

Morlar

I must be one of dem religious crazies too because I wouldn't vote for him in a million years.