Twenty years since homosexuality was decriminalised in Ireland

Wattle

I was talking to a friend of mine who lived near Palmerston Park in South Dublin which was a gay cruising area. He was saying that back in the 80's & 90's it used to be a hive of activity especially at weekends. Sometimes the cops would pass through and you could see people scattering in all directions. Since the law has changed it's no longer a cruising spot. I guess people feel like the climate has changed and they don't need to hide their sexuality anymore.

old hippy

Wattle wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who lived near Palmerston Park in South Dublin which was a gay cruising area. He was saying that back in the 80's & 90's it used to be a hive of activity especially at weekends. Sometimes the cops would pass through and you could see people scattering in all directions. Since the law has changed it's no longer a cruising spot. I guess people feel like the climate has changed and they don't need to hide their sexuality anymore.

I have it on good authority that cruising still goes on. For some people, it's the thrill of a chance random encounter in the dark...

who is this

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This is all the more bewildering because, as it was noted by the Court at the time, public attitudes to homosexuality was far more accepting than the Government's actions would have suggested, which implies that the Government of the day were on a strange sort of moral crusade.

Current and last governments aren't much better. On the one hand they are (supposedly) attempting to introduce same-sex marriage, while on the other hand fighting against a much more efficient and significantly less divisive method of doing it, by contesting Gilligan and Zappone's case, using the very same jaded arguments opponents would use in a referendum.

The government presents it as though their hands are tied without a referendum, while at the same time arguing to keep their hands tied.

Cody Pomeray

who is this wrote: »

Current and last governments aren't much better. On the one hand they are (supposedly) attempting to introduce same-sex marriage, while on the other hand fighting against a much more efficient and significantly less divisive method of doing it, by contesting Gilligan and Zappone's case, using the very same jaded arguments opponents would use in a referendum.

The government presents it as though their hands are tied without a referendum, while at the same time arguing to keep their hands tied.

Yes I agree with this completely. There are cases where the Attorney General may have a case in constitutional law, yet makes a point of not arguing her cases and accepts constitutional duties to citizens where none may actually exist. This is thought to be done out of basic goodness, or as a matter of principle.

Zappone should be a great candidate for that policy, you would think. It does appear like irrational behaviour.

Annasopra

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It should be pointed out too that the Irish Courts were not the bad guy in the Norris case. If anything, the High Court and the Supreme Court rulings, although they had to find against Norris, were tempered with sympathy and human compassion, and they awarded Norris his costs as some recompense. The courts have to deal with the law hanging above them, as written by Government.

Not sure I agree with that having read the TF O Higgins judgement

From the earliest days, organised religion, regarded homosexual conduct, such as sodomy and associated acts with a deep revulsion as being contrary to the order of nature, a perversion of the biological functions of the sexual organs and an affront both to society and to Gods. With the advent of Christianity this view found clear expression in the teachings of St. Paul, and has been repeated over the centuries by the doctors and leaders of the Church in every land in which the Gospel of Christ has been preached. To-day, as appears from the evidence given in this case, this strict view is beginning to be questioned by individual Christian theologians but, nevertheless, as the learned trial judge said in his judgment, it remains, the teaching of all Christian Churches that homosexual acts are wrong.

In England, buggery was first treated as a crime by the statute 25 Hen. VIII c. 6, having been previously dealt with only in the ecclesiastical courts. In Ireland, it first received statutory condemnation in the statute of the Irish Parliament 10 Chas. I, sess. 2, c. 20. Subject to statutory changes as to punishment, it continued to be prohibited and punished as a crime in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1861 which were complemented by the later provisions of the Act of 1885. While those statutory provisions have now been repealed in the entire of the United Kingdom, the question in this case is whether they ceased to operate in Ireland at the time of the enactment of the Constitution in 1937.

In the course of the trial of this action in the High Court, reference was made to the Wolfenden Report, to the Kinsey Survey on homosexual behaviour conducted in the United States arid to a similar survey conducted in Sweden. No such survey has been conducted in Ireland, but the trial judge on the evidence he heard, was prepared to conclude that there is probably a large number of people in this country with homosexual tendencies. Of these, however, only a small number are exclusively homosexual in the sense that their orientation is congenital and irreversible. It is this small group (of those with homosexual tendencies) who must look to the others for the kind of relationship, stable or promiscuous, which they seek and desire. It follows that the efforts and activities of the congenital must tend towards involving the homosexually orientated in more and more deviant sexual acts to such an extent that such involvement may become habitual.

The evidence in this case and the text-books produced as part thereof indicate how sad, lonely and harrowing the life of a person, who is or has become exclusively homosexual, is likely to be.

Professor West in his work, Homosexuality Re-Examined, states at p. 318:-―Exclusive homosexuality forces a person into a minority group; cuts off all prospect of fulfilment through a family life with children and hampers participation in mainstream social activities which are mostly geared to the needs of heterosexual couples. He goes on to talk of those, whose life centres on short-term liaisons, as facing loneliness and frustration as they lose their sexual attractiveness with advancing age. Other authors, also referred to, indicate the instability of male homosexual relations, the high incidence of suicide attempts and the depressive reactions which frequently occur when a relationship ends (Harrison; Reid, Barrett & Hewer). These are some of the consequences which, experience has indicated, tend to follow on a lifestyle which is exclusively homosexual.

Apart from these sad consequences of exclusive homosexuality, unfortunately there are other problems thereby created which constitute a threat to public health. Professor West in his work already mentioned, which was published in a revised form in England over ten years after the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct, says at p. 228:- ―Far from being immune from venereal infection, as many used to like to believe, male homosexuals run a particularly high risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases. The author goes on to show that in the post decriminalisation decade in Britain many forms of venereal disease (syphilis, gonorrhea, urethritis and intestinal infection) have shown an alarming increase in males, and that this is attributable directly to the increase in homosexual activity and conduct. In relation to syphilis, the author gives this serious warning:- ―A promiscuous homosexual with such a reservoir of infection can transmit the disease, in all innocence, to a whole sequence of victims before the carrier is discovered. The diagnosis at this stage is not always obvious, even when suspected, since blood tests for this infection do not usually become positive until some weeks after the primary chancre has appeared. He might well have added that, in the case of the novice or the new entrant into homosexual activity, reticence or shame might well delay further the tracing and discovery of the carrier.

Apart from these known consequences of fairly widespread homosexual behaviour and conduct, one other matter of particular importance should be noted. This is the effect of homosexual activity on marriage. It has to be accepted that, for the small percentage of males who are congenitally and irreversibly homosexual, marriage is not open or possible. They must seek such partnerships as they can amongst those whose orientation disposes them to homosexual overtures.

But for those so disposed or orientated, but not yet committed, what effect will the acceptance of such overtures be likely to have on marriage? Again, precise information in relation to Ireland is not available. One can only look to what the Wolfenden Committee said in its report (para. 55) before the changes in the law occurred in the United Kingdom:- ―The second contention, that homosexual behaviour between males has a damaging effect on family life, may well be true. Indeed we have had evidence that it often is: cases in which homosexual behaviour on the part of the husband has broken up a marriage are by no means rare, and there are also cases in which a man in whom the homosexual component is relatively weak, nevertheless, derives such satisfaction from homosexual outlets that he does not enter upon a marriage which might have been successfully and happily consummated. We deplore this damage to what we regard as the basic unit of society. That view was based on the limited experience available to the Committee prior to any changes in the law. It indicates, however, that homosexual activity and its encouragement may not be consistent with respect and regard for marriage as an institution. I would not think it unreasonable to conclude that an open and general increase in homosexual activity in any society must have serious consequences of a harmful nature so far as marriage is concerned.

I have been speaking of homosexuality and of its possible consequences in accordance with what, in my view, can be gathered from the evidence in this case. What I have said can be summarised as follows.

(1) Homosexuality has always been condemned in Christian teaching as being morally wrong. It has equally been regarded by society for many centuries as an offence against nature and a very serious crime.
(2) Exclusive homosexuality, whether the condition be congenital or acquired, can result in great distress and unhappiness for the individual and can lead to depression, despair and suicide.
(3) The homosexually orientated can be importuned into a homosexual lifestyle which can become habitual.
(4) Male homosexual conduct has resulted, in other countries, in the spread of all forms of venereal disease and this has now become a significant public-health problem in England.
(5) Homosexual conduct can be inimical to marriage and is per se harmful to it as an institution.

In the United Kingdom the decisive factor in bringing about decriminalisation of homosexuality was the acceptance of the view advocated by the Wolfenden Committee, and repeated in this case by the plaintiff, that homosexuality was concerned only with private morality and that the law had no business in entering into that field. Whether such a view can be accepted in Ireland depends not on what was done by a sovereign parliament in the United Kingdom but on what our Constitution ordains and requires.

The preamble to the Constitution proudly asserts the existence of God in the Most Holy Trinity and recites that the people of Ireland humbly acknowledge their obligation to ―our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ. It cannot be doubted that the people, so asserting and acknowledging their obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, were proclaiming a deep religious conviction and faith and an intention to adopt a Constitution consistent with that conviction and faith and with Christian beliefs.

Yet it is suggested that, in the very act of so doing, the people rendered inoperative laws which had existed for hundreds of years prohibiting unnatural sexual conduct which Christian teaching held to be gravely sinful. It would require very clear and express provisions in the Constitution itself to convince me that such took place. When one considers that the conduct in question had been condemned consistently in the name of Christ for almost two thousand years and, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, was prohibited as criminal by the laws in force in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the suggestion becomes more incomprehensible and difficult of acceptance.

Cody Pomeray

mango salsa wrote: »

Not sure I agree with that having read the TF O Higgins judgement

I had Henchy's extensive, dissenting judgement in mind. Even though Henchy himself relied on spiritual guidance, he passed down a characteristic humanity in his judgement. But yes it would be wrong to ascribe Henchy's compassion to the courts universally. The (later) Chief Justice Hamilton was to write of Henchy and his co-dissenter in Norris that neither judge

“felt able to deny or to play down the importance of the Christian ethic in the identification of constitutional rights. The difference was one of emphasis: both dissenting judges preferred to name charity, rather than justice, as the primary Christian virtue in a pluralist, democratic society."

Therefore, what these judges were trying to do was to bring the principles of liberty and dignity to the fore and persuade Christian morality in to the background. So this is the compassion I refer to, although I accept it was not universal, after all Norris did lose by 3-2 in that case.

EyeSight

Corkfeen wrote: »

Take it you completely ignored the content of my previous post.....

i could say the same of you.
i know they are not "gay only". But i was pointing out with a name like that, you could forgive people for assuming they were. I think it's an excellent idea, i think it's sad the mainstream sports aren't open to everyone.
Can't make my point any clearer.

padd b1975

Get well soon David..

http://www.thejournal.ie/senator-david-norris-seriously-ill-with-cancer-966870-Jun2013/?utm_source=facebook_short

gcgirl

old hippy wrote: »

I have it on good authority that cruising still goes on. For some people, it's the thrill of a chance random encounter in the dark...

It's usually closet cases that resort to it, same with All Ireland weekends in Dublin the Boiler house does great business I've been told.

gcgirl

mikemcdeedy100 wrote: »

they should just leave it at the civil partnership for gay couples

thats where it should be at

marriage is for a man and woman to procreate and for children to be conceived born and reared

i'm not conservative like but it just seems obvious


i mean the willy was designed to fit a pussy like wasnt it?..................

Jees even my 7 year old uses the proper words Penis and Vagina :O

efb

Happy Pride folks!

mikehammer67

Wattle wrote: »

I was talking to a friend of mine who lived near Palmerston Park in South Dublin which was a gay cruising area. He was saying that back in the 80's & 90's it used to be a hive of activity especially at weekends. Sometimes the cops would pass through and you could see people scattering in all directions. Since the law has changed it's no longer a cruising spot. I guess people feel like the climate has changed and they don't need to hide their sexuality anymore.

like prostitution fizzled out when they decriminalized sex huh......

AnonoBoy

mikemcdeedy100 wrote: »

they should just leave it at the civil partnership for gay couples

thats where it should be at

marriage is for a man and woman to procreate and for children to be conceived born and reared

i'm not conservative like but it just seems obvious

LOLZ. Yes you are.

mikehammer67

AnonoBoy wrote: »

LOLZ. Yes you are.

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

TheFOB

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

You're only on the Earth for a short amount of time and I don't see why you would want to make it misserable for other people while your here. I don't see any problem with gay marriage. None.

shruikan2553

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

Most people think they should change. There is no reason why they should stay the same.

TeddyTedson

Of course there should be legalised gay marriage.
If the idea of marriage is to bring up kids should heterosexual couples who choose not to have children not be allowed to marry, of course not.

krudler

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

That's their problem then. What I dont understand is that gay people being allowed marry affects straight marriage in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. and yet people still get all pissy about it. "oh god said its for a man and a woman" yeah god also said a lot of crazy sh1t that people ignore, but yet the gay marriage thing is something people wont budge on.

Canard

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

That's what conservative means. If someone thinks they're so special that they have the right to treat someone like a second-class citizen because they think gay marriage "isn't a great idea", then they are conservative. No reason why that ridiculous attitude should be kept around.

FairytaleGirl

mikemcdeedy100 wrote: »

they should just leave it at the civil partnership for gay couples

thats where it should be at

marriage is for a man and woman to procreate and for children to be conceived born and reared

i'm not conservative like but it just seems obvious


i mean the willy was designed to fit a pussy like wasnt it?..................

Wasnt designed to fit a hand either.. No more fapping for YOU!

Also, marriage exists for procreation only? But I thought nuns were married to God and priests were married to Mary..
WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?!

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE (unconceived) CHILDREN!

Pherekydes

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

some things should be changed ....some should remain the same

Not everyone thinks marriage is a great idea, either.

Don't worry, nobody's going to force you into a gay marriage.

Cody Pomeray

mikemcdeedy100 wrote: »

i mean the willy was designed to fit a pussy like wasnt it?..................

Trying not to read too much into "designed"...,

Nobody is doubting that we need a penis and a vagina acting together if we want new babies.

But at the moment we have this ridiculous situation whereby there are gay parents, (and legally acknowledged gay couples with no children) who are constitutionally denied a family status, and indeed the constitutional protections afforded to families.

A gay couple with children may not be protected as a family, yet a married couple with no children are given that protection. This is discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation by its very definition.

And if you're going to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, you should have a very good reason for doing so. *It's just my opinion, everyone's entitled to an opinion* just won't cut it anymore.

What's the reason?

mikehammer67

Canard wrote: »

That's what conservative means. If someone thinks they're so special that they have the right to treat someone like a second-class citizen because they think gay marriage "isn't a great idea", then they are conservative. No reason why that ridiculous attitude should be kept around.

is it ridiculous that a man and a woman get married and have children

gay people have partnerships........

have gay sex ...........

adopt children...........

thats different to marriage like.....

AnonoBoy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

not everybody thinks gay marriage is a great idea

Those people are conservative. Which is what I was pointing out.

mikehammer67 wrote: »

is it ridiculous that a man and a woman get married and have children

gay people have partnerships........

have gay sex ...........

adopt children...........

thats different to marriage like.....

I know loads of married people without children and more who have adopted children.

According to you they're not married because they adopted kids?

LOLZ.

Try again Mr. Conservative.

Gay Marriage is coming whether you and your poorly thought out and articulated points like it or not.

mikehammer67

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Those people are conservative. Which is what I was pointing out.



I know loads of married people without children and more who have adopted children.

According to you they're not married because they adopted kids?

LOLZ.

Try again Mr. Conservative.

Gay Marriage is coming whether you and your poorly thought out and articulated points like it or not.

yes Mr. Angry but obviously gay couples can't conceive children together

there is a distinction

Neeson

Was it actually illegal to be a gay 20 years ago in Ireland? Would you be locked up if you said you were? For how long?

AnonoBoy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

yes Mr. Angry but obviously gay couples can't conceive children together there is a distinction

Not angry at all. Amused by how weak your argument is.

What about women who are infertile. Can they not get married?

I know a guy who's had a vasectomy - is his marriage not legal now?

LOLZ.

mikehammer67

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Not angry at all. Amused by how weak your argument is.

What about women who are infertile. Can they not get married?

I know a guy who's had a vasectomy - is his marriage not legal now?

LOLZ.

they are exceptions

so what

AnonoBoy

mikehammer67 wrote: »

they are exceptions

so what

So how come they are exceptions but gay people aren't in your mind?

Where does it say that marriage is dependent on the ability to conceive?

mikehammer67

we're mostly catholic here

Marriage in the Catholic Church, also called matrimony, is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

thats the way i see it...........

i understand you have a problem with that and will keep debating on and on ........

just my 2c worth and i don't need to have my opinion changed thank you..........