Does the Gay lobby have a monopoly on discrimination?

gormdubhgorm

When I saw a bit of the Irish people of the year awards and Panti Bliss got an award. I was thinking oh it must have been something amazing. Stephen Fry and David Norris were wheeled out. It was all a big celebration.

What was the award given for? A speech about how abuse was hurled at him at traffic lights in town!

I decided to look it up nothing major was said
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26075280

I thought about this and wondered about how little coverage other minority groups receive -

1) Travellers - in contrast they do not receive any positive press. Mainly do to lack of infiltration to the national media. Also travelers do not end up having the same educational opportunities.

2) Minority racial groups - in Ireland the profile has increased people know that racism is wrong since the Cosby show in the 1980's so nothing new there. Old news. Sean O Halpin, Jayo and Lee Chin have helped enlighten Irish minds further in the GAA. Much like what Donal Og Cusack has done for the Gay community.

3) People with disabilities - very low profile in the national media it is almost an afterthought because there are no real votes in it. Maybe medical cards that is about it.

If Panti Bliss was in any other of these three minority groups above would it have attracted as much attention? To say that someone hurled abuse at a traveller/disabled person/or minority race does not seem trendy enough for the national media.

Granted everybody wants to be treated equally. But why is it the case that one group in particular seems to get all the airtime for the most innocuous of things.

The only lobby in Ireland that I can think of that is louder is the Taxi Union of Ireland!

It is the disproportionate volume that one group gets over another that annoys me. A monopoly on playing the oppressed victim.

Edit: I am not against a gay person getting an award. What I was amazed was how little it took to get the award. I was also wondering how other groups could learn from the LGBT community in terms of promotion and advocacy. But I am annoyed about how the level of interest by the LGBT is disproportionate in comparison to what other minority groups receive. I wanted to try and figure out the reasons.

anncoates

I don't agree that 'they' get disproportionate attention but in contrast to the other categories you mention, maybe there's an element of novelty, for want of a better word, of a community finally coming into the mainstream, as it were, as the country finally grows up a bit.

AndonHandon

Maybe because they contribute more to society than the other groups? I'm not saying that in a sneering way, just speculating.

Falthyron

I wish Don Kedick would share his views on this topic. Always, so clear, so understandable. Ireland needs more Don Kedicks.

To answer the OP: It probably has something to do with proximity. I don't have any figures, but maybe the stereotypical Irish people know more people who are gay or part of the LGBT scene than we know of Travellers, people with disabilities, or minority racial groups? We connect more with that group in society than the others you have listed?

seamus

The People of the Year Awards, organised by Rehab, provide a unique opportunity for the Irish public to honour those who have made a real difference to people's lives, whether as unsung heroes or household names.

How many travelers, minority race members or disabled people have made a real difference to people's lives this year? And rather than complaining about "teh gheys", why aren't you annoyed that these other people didn't win?

Panti didn't get it for a single speech. He got it because of the work he's done this year raising the profile of the gay community and attacking those individuals and institutions who have abused their positions to spread homophobia.

Joanne O'Riordan won the same award two years ago. So it would be a fallacy to think that one minority group have a monopoly on everything, regardless of your own personal prejudice in this regard.

efb

I don't recall interest groups vocally campaigning against the other groups mentioned.

nc19

I see there's a new Monopoly game out now where you buy the worlds leading brands instead of property!

gormdubhgorm

AndonHandon wrote: »

Maybe because they contribute more to society than the other groups? I'm not saying that in a sneering way, just speculating.

There might be some argument to that.

But I feel mainly it is because (despite the lack of numbers) is because there are a lot of people from the gay community in the media. So a positive spin can always be created at every opportunity.

Other minority groups do not have this luxury I think.

Lyaiera

I agree with the op. I think it sucks that so many minority groups with huge disadvantage and even discrimination aimed at them get so little airtime. It's great that one of those groups managed to get the attention necessary to demand their very rights, and to demand that people stop treating them like second class citizens. I wish every one of those groups had the same amount of airtime as gay people, and I wish they all had even more than that.

padd b1975

No they don't have a monopoly, but some are far too quick to play the discrimination card when all they've encountered is basic personal dislike.

Mr. CooL ICE

If somebody from a minority group could have had someone with a sense of entrepreneurship and able to make profit in a niche market while showing themselves to be a family person, then Patrick The Pipe Bomber should have got the award.

efb

padd b1975 wrote: »

No they don't have a monopoly, but some are far too quick to play the discrimination card when all they've encountered is basic personal dislike.

Have you any specific examples of that?

I would merit campaigning against equal rights for them more than a "personal dislike"

efb

padd b1975 wrote: »

No they don't have a monopoly, but some are far too quick to play the discrimination card when all they've encountered is basic personal dislike.

Imagine sueing a TV show and getting payed out for someone indirectly saying that thought you were being homophobic- that's playing the discrimination card!

gormdubhgorm

seamus wrote: »

How many travelers, minority race members or disabled people have made a real difference to people's lives this year? And rather than complaining about "teh gheys", why aren't you annoyed that these other people didn't win?

Panti didn't get it for a single speech. He got it because of the work he's done this year raising the profile of the gay community and attacking those individuals and institutions who have abused their positions to spread homophobia.

Joanne O'Riordan won the same award two years ago. So it would be a fallacy to think that one minority group have a monopoly on everything, regardless of your own personal prejudice in this regard.

From what I saw there was heavy emaphize on Panti Bliss' speech.

Joanne O'Riordan is an exception to the rule (a documentary had a lot to with this) . There are plenty of other people who are vocal about the rights of the Gay Community. Radio presenters, intellectuals people involved in the arts and culture etc.

The reason why you think no travellers made any difference to peoples lives is because they are not publicized. The only positives I can think of are the Traveller actors in love hate.
Who knows they might have inspired others to act?

Donkey Oaty

They gave David Joyce, barrister and traveller, an award in 2005 for his work promoting traveller's rights.

floggg

You do know that equality isn't a finite resource?

Instead of starting a thread wondering if one group stole it all or something, why not ask how or why has the LGBT community advanced their cause so well in recent years, and whether there is anything other disadvantaged groups can learn from that or utilise to advance their own causes.

Or what you can be doing better to advance the interests of the other groups you mentioned.

You are doing something to advance the interests of those other groups OP, aren't you?

You are interested in furthering equality for all, rather than complaining that one group is making good progress towards equality? That could hardly be a bad thing, could it?

Edit - while I can't speak for other groups, I would imagine that speech would resonate with other minority groups given how well it illustrated the pervasive nature of discrimination.

Also, if somebody was censored and threatened with legal action for calling out racism, then I imagine they would get a lot of attention too.

conorhal

I'm sure he has done a lot of good work fo gay rights over the years and I wouldn't be that familiar with his work, but there is a certian sense of 'Obama wins Nobel Peace prize' about this win.

Links234

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

They gave David Joyce, barrister and traveller, an award in 2005 for his work promoting traveller's rights.

I'm guessing the OP's issue isn't that members of other named groups didn't get awards, but that someone who is LGBT did.

lazygal

Is the Gay Lobby where they agree on the Homosexual Agenda?

Links234

lazygal wrote: »

Is the Gay Lobby where they agree on the Homosexual Agenda?

It's where we get snacks and drinks before going into the Gay Theater

Timmyctc

Links234 wrote: »

I'm guessing the OP's issue isn't that members of other named groups didn't get awards, but that someone who is LGBT did.

Fairly damning assumption to make. Op has been very clear in their posts. If there is indeed an ulterior motive they haven't shown much to imply one exists. All we have to go on is their word which they've been very direct with Imo.

nlk

I think if people with disabilities, travellers, or anyone for that matter was prohibited by the state from marrying who they wanted we'd hear just as much about it in the media.

Celebrating one good cause doesn't detract from others. The vast majority of community, voluntary, special interest and charitable groups applaud the achievements and successes of other groups because they recognise that a step towards equality in any sphere is better for everyone in society.

lolosaur

erm, the mere categorisation of homosexuality as a minority grouped with travellers and the disabled is an insult to all three groups. does nobody else find this question tantamount to being a racist homophobic biggot all in one????

homelessness seems to be flavour of the week. why didnt you couple in homosexuality with that also???


and the answer is clearly not. politically correct people who drive stories of discrimination and go looking for offensiveness in every crevace are the ones who have the monopoly.

Now, i know most of you wont have the courage to share this on your facebook page for even one hour but it will definitely make a difference.

Reekwind

Timmyctc wrote: »

Fairly damning assumption to make. Op has been very clear in their posts. If there is indeed an ulterior motive they haven't shown much to imply one exists. All we have to go on is their word which they've been very direct with Imo.

Really? The OP has never heard of Panti's speech and twice explicitly played down the level of discrimination faced by the Irish LGBT community (which apparently is just "the most innocuous of things"). He also, again explicitly, complained about this community "playing the oppressed victim". There's not much 'sub' in the subtext here.

AnonoBoy

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

A monopoly on playing the oppressed victim.

I'm unaware of any well-funded groups out there who are actively campaigning to stop travellers or disabled people from getting married.

Gay people certainly don't have as hard a time of it as they used to (it used to be illegal in this country for f*ck's sake!) but they do have the likes of the Iona Institute who threaten their way onto the airwaves and spew their bigoted nonsense - we even have the BAI saying that opponents of gay marriage must be on air to counter any person who mentions it in a postivie light on air even when it's not a debate programme.

Miguel_Sanchez

Links234 wrote: »

It's where we get snacks and drinks before going into the Gay Theater

It's a rather fabulous foyer too.

Summer wind

Oh my god how dare those terrible gay people think they should be treated equally to everyone else. I'm truly outraged:)

Wez

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Gay people certainly don't have as hard a time of it as they used to (it used to be illegal in this country for f*ck's sake!) but they do have the likes of the Iona Institute who threaten their way onto the airwaves and spew their bigoted nonsense - we even have the BAI saying that opponents of gay marriage must be on air to counter any person who mentions is on air even when it's not a debate programme.

I'm not gay, disabled or a traveller, but huge corporations prevent the legal use of cannabis, which negatively affects the way many people live their lives. They are a lot more powerful than your church going crowd too. Besides, you're not thrown in jail for smoking a c0ck these days..

It would be the same, if the tables were turned and you had someone on talking about opposing gay marriage, they would flood the air with LGBT people saying it's fab-u-lous etc. I actually feel they would be obliged to allow more LGBT on, than those who might agree with the "anti" opinion. It would be much harder for a broadcaster to shake an "anti-gay" image than an "pro-choice" image.

I don't mind what life choices people make, as long as they don't affect other people. LGBT adoption is where I draw the line, you made your choice, don't drag others into this too. Unless you want to adopt someone who's over 18...

VinLieger

Wez wrote: »

I'm not gay, disabled or a traveller, but huge corporations prevent the legal use of cannabis, which negatively affects the way many people live their lives. They are a lot more powerful than your church going crowd too. Besides, you're not thrown in jail for smoking a c0ck these days..

It would be the same, if the tables were turned and you had someone on talking about opposing gay marriage, they would flood the air with LGBT people saying it's fab-u-lous etc. I actually feel they would be obliged to allow more LGBT on, than those who might agree with the "anti" opinion. It would be much harder for a broadcaster to shake an "anti-gay" image than an "pro-choice" image.

I don't mind what life choices people make, as long as they don't affect other people. LGBT adoption is where I draw the line, you made your choice, don't drag others into this too. Unless you want to adopt someone who's over 18...

Your "choice" to believe that gay parents are somehow inferior to straight parents or a single parent directly affects Gay people who wish to adopt and provide a loving home to a child so good job at failing to live up to your own standards.

Also calling homosexuality a choice is a bigoted statement, note i'm not saying that your a bigot simply that you hold bigoted opinion's

Slot Machine

Wez wrote: »

I'm not gay, disabled or a traveller, but huge corporations prevent the legal use of cannabis, which negatively affects the way many people live their lives. They are a lot more powerful than your church going crowd too. Besides, you're not thrown in jail for smoking a c0ck these days..

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that smoking cannabis was an immutable characteristic like sexuali--

I don't mind what life choices people make, as long as they don't affect other people. LGBT adoption is where I draw the line, you made your choice, don't drag others into this too. Unless you want to adopt someone who's over 18...

Oh, you're one of those people who does think sexuality is a choice. Never mind!

AnonoBoy

Wez wrote: »

I'm not gay, disabled or a traveller, but huge corporations prevent the legal use of cannabis, which negatively affects the way many people live their lives. They are a lot more powerful than your church going crowd too. Besides, you're not thrown in jail for smoking a c0ck these days..

You're not comparing like with like at all.

In fact you seem to be unsure of what this thread is even about.

Wez

How open minded you all are. Well done!

AnonoBoy

Wez wrote: »

How open minded you all are. Well done!

I honestly have no idea why you brought up dope in the first place.

Do you honestly think the debate about legalisation of marijuana is similar to the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals?

VinLieger

Wez wrote: »

How open minded you all are. Well done!

LOL bit of a ninja edit there? pretty sure that post said something along the lines of "shove your opinion up your hole" 1 minute ago, apparently a bit more open minded than you anyway

humanji

MOD: folks, we're not going down the debating of gay adoption rights on this thread. Please stick to the topic.

Wez

Anon: I do actually, a hugely outdated opinion from a powerful minority is still having an effect on peoples lives today.

If you cannot possibly see how others (other peoples freedoms) have struggled to have their voice heard, then I'm not going to get into this fairly one sided debate.

It's sounding like OP is spot on now, after attempting a discussion.

seamus

"Open-minded" does not mean, "Everyone's opinions are equal". "Open minded" simply means that someone is receptive to new ideas.

You can be open minded while telling someone that their opinion is a big crock of bull plop.

Slot Machine

Wez wrote: »

Anon: I do actually, a hugely outdated opinion from a powerful minority is still having an effect on peoples lives today.

Your comparison only makes sense in the most facile way possible. It's like comparing humans and bananas because they both have some common genetic material.

To be more flippant, it's like taking a "first world problem" and conflating it with people who undergo real struggles.

Which, now that I think of it, is what it actually is. :pac:

Wez

VinLieger wrote: »

Your "choice" to believe that gay parents are somehow inferior to straight parents or a single parent directly affects Gay people who wish to adopt and provide a loving home to a child so good job at failing to live up to your own standards.

Also calling homosexuality a choice is a bigoted statement, note i'm not saying that your a bigot simply that you hold bigoted opinion's

I feel compelled to answer this:

I never said inferior, I simply said that it will have an effect on another persons life that has not yet made a decision like this (or is not yet old enough to). It has never been possible for 2 people of the same sex to re-create without intervention, ever! This is an entirely new era for humans and so laws should be written based on the knowledge we now have.

You cannot deny, having both your Daddy's collecting you outside school has the potential for that child to be bullied beyond belief by his class mates. That's quite a negative side affect that has potential to ruin this childs life.

Slot_machine: Not exactly, the LBGT are trying to reverse laws that were enacted in the olden times, where logic and facts are not necessarily provided. My point is, why don't we look at what we know now and make a decision based on that.

I feel that if minorities in Ireland grouped together, there'd be a more powerful voice to hear.

I personally don't have any issue with LGBT marrying, where 2 people decide what they want. Dragging a third party into this is where my opinion differs.

Because I don't have the f*ckin LGBT dictionary with me today, I might have stated "choice" instead of the fist of God deciding, or whatever you guys wanna call it. Mouthing off at an outsider for lack of proper language just shows ignorance, you won't even hear me out because of the vocabulary I used.

That's me done, I've got work to do.

Dial Hard

Wez wrote: »

I never said inferior, I simply said that it will have an effect on another persons life that has not yet made a decision like this (or is not yet old enough to).

I personally don't have any issue with LGBT marrying, where 2 people decide what they want. Dragging a third party into this is where my opinion differs.

Heterosexual couples are doing the exact same thing, though - essentially creating a hostage to fortune that has absolutely no say/choice/decision in the kind of parents they're being born to. So I don't really see your point?

Donkey Oaty

Wez wrote: »

You cannot deny, having both your Daddy's collecting you outside school has the potential for that child to be bullied beyond belief by his class mates. That's quite a negative side affect that has potential to ruin this childs life.

You might be right there.

Sounds like a good argument for highlighting anti-LGBT sentiment and giving awards to people who capture the public imagination with their campaign for equality to stop that kind of bullying.

humanji

MOD: Folks, you won't be told again. This thread is not about gay adoption.

Wez

I feel that gays have a monopoly on discrimination.

I can't even reply now for fear of being banned, so well done yet again!

Slot Machine

"Lack of proper language"? Since when has "choice" meant "not a choice"? I mean it's not as if there's any ambiguity here, the meaning of the word "choice" is crystal clear.

If you don't think sexuality is a choice, why did you say it is?

Donkey Oaty

Wez wrote: »

I feel that gays have a monopoly on discrimination.

I can't even reply now for fear of being banned, so well done yet again!

You speak your mind, sir, and damn the consequences.

For what it's worth, I don't think that you genuinely feel that gay people have a monopoly on discrimination.

It's just a phase you're going through.

Wez

This is getting childish, I've no interest in playing your queer little games any more.

super_furry

Wow.

Tope

Wez wrote: »

You cannot deny, having both your Daddy's collecting you outside school has the potential for that child to be bullied beyond belief by his class mates. That's quite a negative side affect that has potential to ruin this childs life.

Seriously, that bullying argument is always being dragged out and it makes zero sense. If the only major problem that children of gay couples will face is being bullied, then the solution is obviously to teach children not to bully, rather than to stop gay couples from raising children.
The bullying is the problem here: the bullies are the ones in the wrong. Banning gay couples from raising children because the children will suffer at the hands of others is not the way to fix that problem. Teach children that there's absolutely nothing wrong with their classmate having two mums or two dads and the problem will be solved.

RDM_83 again

Maybe because its a problem that in one sense is easy and straight forwards to fix and cheap economically (unlike the other issues).

Gay marriage doesn't harm anybody and doesn't cost the country anything.

Not being aggressively homophobic is what civilised people should be anyway, only assholes think its acceptable to give people sh^t about their life choices or demean them publicly about anything not just if their gay or straight.

wonderboy76

If I *chose* to be gay, tell me why I would? All I read in the press is how awful gays are and how they should just be happy with a few rights and not go around demanding equal treatment like normal people; it's noW ACTUALLY A REQUIREMENT

Wez

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Maybe because its a problem that in one sense is easy and straight forwards to fix and cheap economically (unlike the other issues).

Gay marriage doesn't harm anybody and doesn't cost the country anything.

Not being aggressively homophobic is what civilised people should be anyway, only assholes think its acceptable to give people sh^t about their life choices or demean them publicly about anything not just if their gay or straight.

:eek:

HOW DARE YOU!!!!! IT'S NOT A F*CKIN CHOICE YOU INCONSIDERATE F*CKIN GOBS#ITE!!

JK, that's my point. These minority groups don't need huge funding, tax cuts etc.. They just need regulations dialled in to allow them to operate freely.

Adoption is a different thread..

Tope: Bullying has been a problem for years! If we could help cure it, we wouldn't have so many teens dying from suicide. It's something you have to deal with..