Does the Gay lobby have a monopoly on discrimination?

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Anon: I do actually, a hugely outdated opinion from a powerful minority is still having an effect on peoples lives today.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Anon: I do actually, a hugely outdated opinion from a powerful minority is still having an effect on peoples lives today.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

lolosaur

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.

Sure i dont mind what the gays do as long as they do it in private. and nowhere near me. so as long as i dont see or hear them, it's ok. except in the eyes of god though, then its very wrong.

This country has not grown up at all. it's just easier to ignore things these days.

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 that radio shows have someone else on any debate about homosexuality to tell people who godawful gays are for "balance"; I regularly get called names or have abuse shouted at me in the street or if I come out of a gay pub in town and I've been beaten up and attacked many times on top of that.

And now I read on here that I CHOSE this? No, I didn't chose this. But the people who choose to make gay people's life a misery because of their own prejudices, bigotry or lack of self worht certainly DID choose to take that course of action. You're not forced to like gay people (though god knows why theur sexuality even matters to you) but you should, don't you think, be a little bit of a human being about accepting we should have a right to live as you do - wihtout constant abuse, mainstream attacks on our very existence and physical attack and (in certain parts of the world) execution?

Now tell me again why I'd CHOSE this?

Littlekittylou

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

This is a disingenuous argument.

Also there are gay travellors gay minorities and gay disabled people. Infact there was numerous events organized by the gay commnity for gaydeaf people. And Shirley temple bar used to often do a part of her show in Sign language because her/his parents are deaf.

Saying you disapprove of the attention gay people get because of the lack of attention others get is just a backhanded dig at gay people.

If you want to give attention to other communities. Then simply give attention to other communities.

Part of the reason the gay community has been successful is because they use positive campaigning. Be positive about the communities you want to help instead of being negative. It is actually useful to them.

gormdubhgorm

I am disappointed how this thread has gone.
It is not do with the various issues any minority group may have it is whether one minority group has a disproportionate voice to the rest. Also whether this group may be a monopolising voice as result of this disproportionate voice.

The 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland reported the number of Irish Travellers as 22,369.
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75490

From the CSO website Persons, males and females, at work aged 15 years and over with a disability classified by age group and percentage disabled, 2011. is 112,502
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/health/personsmalesandfemalesatworkaged15yearsandoverwithadisabilityclassifiedbyagegroupandpercentagedisabled2011/

2006
A study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the ESRI, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf
If the above extrapolated this equates to roughly 150000 who identify as gay. I could not find any definitive figure.


Based on these figures what do people think?

Donkey Oaty

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Based on these figures what do people think?

Here's what I think: based on the Irish "People of the Year Awards", which is what this thread is about, their allocation of honours over the years does not seem to justify your thesis that LGBT campaigners are highlighted to the exclusion of everyone else.

Littlekittylou

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am disappointed how this thread has gone.
It is not do with the various issues any minority group may have it is whether one minority group has a disproportionate voice to the rest. Also whether this group may be a monopolising voice as result of this disproportionate voice.

The 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland reported the number of Irish Travellers as 22,369.
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75490

From the CSO website Persons, males and females, at work aged 15 years and over with a disability classified by age group and percentage disabled, 2011. is 112,502
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/health/personsmalesandfemalesatworkaged15yearsandoverwithadisabilityclassifiedbyagegroupandpercentagedisabled2011/

2006
A study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the ESRI, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf
If the above extrapolated this equates to roughly 150000 who identify as gay. I could not find any definitive figure.


Based on these figures what do people think?

Minorities are inter-sectional. There are gay deaf people and gay travelers.

No I don't think they are over represented.

I do think Travellors are under represented that has nothing to do with the gay community and you are making an illogical argument in connecting the two.

In the same study you quoted 7.1% of men and 4.7% of women reported a homosexual experience some time in their life so far. It also found that 4.4% of men and 1.4% of women reported a "genital same-sex experience" (oral or anal sex, or any other genital contact) in their life so far.

These percentages are the same in most communities. Travelers are a part of a child to parent community. You don't give birth to a traveler child unless you are a traveler. The gay community intersects all other communities in a way other minorities do not.

No there representation is not out of proportion. And if there is a shortage of space in the public arena let's just boot out Iona. They are WAY over represented for the amount of people they represent and their time could be used for more deserving minorities.

gormdubhgorm

Littlekittylou wrote: »

This is a disingenuous argument.

Also there are gay travellors gay minorities and gay disabled people. Infact there was numerous events organized by the gay commnity for gaydeaf people. And Shirley temple bar used to often do a part of her show in Sign language because her/his parents are deaf.

Saying you disapprove of the attention gay people get because of the lack of attention others get is just a backhanded dig at gay people.

If you want to give attention to other communities. Then simply give attention to other communities.

Part of the reason the gay community has been successful is because they use positive campaigning. Be positive about the communities you want to help instead of being negative. It is actually useful to them.

In fairness you make some good points a person could be a gay-black-disabled traveller. If such a person went into the public eye I think that it would be the gay community that would be far more successful in promoting the person then any other group would.

I am just wondering what are the reasons behind the gay communities success in capturing the larger public's attention in comparison to ethnic minorities and the disabled. Education? Flamboyance?

The gay community seem like they are top of the tree of the underdogs at least in regards of publicity.

shruikan2553

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am disappointed how this thread has gone.
It is not do with the various issues any minority group may have it is whether one minority group has a disproportionate voice to the rest. Also whether this group may be a monopolising voice as result of this disproportionate voice.

The 2006 census in the Republic of Ireland reported the number of Irish Travellers as 22,369.
http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75490

From the CSO website Persons, males and females, at work aged 15 years and over with a disability classified by age group and percentage disabled, 2011. is 112,502
http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/health/personsmalesandfemalesatworkaged15yearsandoverwithadisabilityclassifiedbyagegroupandpercentagedisabled2011/

2006
A study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the ESRI, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual.
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20061016131112/BKMNEXT084_Main%20Report.pdf
If the above extrapolated this equates to roughly 150000 who identify as gay. I could not find any definitive figure.


Based on these figures what do people think?

Another thing of note is that there are no anti traveller or anti disabled groups, or at least none that gain any air time because they wouldn't be too well received.

UCDVet

wonderboy76 wrote: »

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 that radio shows have someone else on any debate about homosexuality to tell people who godawful gays are for "balance"; I regularly get called names or have abuse shouted at me in the street or if I come out of a gay pub in town and I've been beaten up and attacked many times on top of that.

And now I read on here that I CHOSE this? No, I didn't chose this. But the people who choose to make gay people's life a misery because of their own prejudices, bigotry or lack of self worht certainly DID choose to take that course of action. You're not forced to like gay people (though god knows why theur sexuality even matters to you) but you should, don't you think, be a little bit of a human being about accepting we should have a right to live as you do - wihtout constant abuse, mainstream attacks on our very existence and physical attack and (in certain parts of the world) execution?

Now tell me again why I'd CHOSE this?

I'm not implying YOU chose to be gay; but a lot of people do chose to self-identify with subcultures. For a lot of reasons.

Like face tattoos. If you get a face tattoo, you will face discrimination and judgement; but people choose to get them.

When I was young, the trendy thing for social outcasts to do was to embrace it and go 'goth'. I can't claim to understand it, but there were quite a few goth kids at my school - they intentionally chose to dress in a way that would bring them discrimination and judgement.

Anyway, for what it's worth; I think being gay does have some perks. If I could picked, I'd have picked to be gay. On paper, it makes more sense to me. I don't want children - and a lot of women do. With a gay man, I wouldn't have to worry about accidental pregnancies and it would be a lot easier to find a gay man who doesn't want children than a straight woman.

Gay men (on average) also have more sexual partners than any other orientation/sex. Now that I'm old and married, I don't care about that stuff. But as a 16 year old boy, if you gave me a choice between going to a party loaded with slutty girls who have sex with lots of people, and a party loaded with puritanical girls who don't have sex with anyone - I'd rather be in the party with the sex.

Plus, I was always told gay men were in better shape, better dressed, and better dancers than straight guys. That doesn't sound so bad to me.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that people can or do choose their orientation. But if it were (or if it is) a choice, I'm certain some people would choose it.

gormdubhgorm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Another thing of note is that there are no anti traveller or anti disabled groups, or at least none that gain any air time because they wouldn't be too well received.

Of course there are anti-traveller groups they just do not call their group anti-traveller. They call it a residents association. Who are concerned that a group of travellers that moved in beside them.
http://www.iol.ie/~fcrg/

I am sure there are some people in Ireland who love to abort a disabled child if it was detected soon enough.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/late-abortions-for-27-irish-women-on-disability-grounds-29057908.html There is no need for a group to be created to cause this.