Pride 2018 :Your views and thoughts

Nokia6230i

An_Toirpin wrote: »

There are many legal barriers to adoption for straight people too and in both straight and gay cases these can normally be overcome. Putting two men on a birth cert as the biological parents is not teh solution. It is a low level form of child abuse.

Wasn't sure which post was going to be the most obviously homophobic, the one that, ultimately harks back to a time when p********a was said to be akin to homosexuality.

I say harks back but yet, but ******* yet here we are with a poster saying this?

Think this is isolated? Think this "thought process" is in the minority?

Think on. Just look at any of the various Irish right wing groups (National Party for example) and the following they have.

Think of various Irish right wing pages such as the L*****l and the K******y J****l and the followings they have (the genuine ones).

Think of the comments you see under them and others in relation to the stories they post (and why they choose these stories and the slant they paint too).

The fight for Pride isn't over; it never will be whether that be Dublin Pride or Trans Pride.

If the above poster represents a participant in a "Straight Pride" count me out.

DivingDuck

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The child has a right to know its parent and falsly adding two mothers or two fathers is ridculous.

When someone puts their baby up for adoption, they have the legal right and ability to withhold their information from that child in the future. (To say nothing of the hundreds or thousands of children being raised by men other than their biological fathers without that man's knowledge.)

There's no history of a legal provision to guarantee a child will know who its biological parents are in other situations, so why should one be enforced here?

Is it morally correct to deprive a child of access to information about their biological parents? Maybe, and maybe not, but there is nothing to say two men/women couldn't and wouldn't happily tell their child who their birth mother/father was. It just means that should one of them die, they won't immediately be thrust, while mourning, into a legal battle to continue to parent their child.

JackTaylorFan

Why do people humour what's going on this forum from non-LGBT people? Don't be polite; don't try explain. It's a waste of your time.

An_Toirpin

J_E wrote: »

Can you expand on what you mean by that, I'm not really sure I understand.



You say 'gays have all the same rights' and I think my response still stands. I feel like you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

It is a low level of child abuse in this day and age to hide the idenity of someone mother and father. The kid had a right to a normal paper trail and that can list two or one men that adopted them but not on their birth.


I agree that there are nasty people out there but that is not relvent to rights. I have frequently gotten abuse from my colothing but that hardly means I have less rights.

An_Toirpin

DivingDuck wrote: »

When someone puts their baby up for adoption, they have the legal right and ability to withhold their information from that child in the future. (To say nothing of the hundreds or thousands of children being raised by men other than their biological fathers without that man's knowledge.)

There's no history of a legal provision to guarantee a child will know who its biological parents are in other situations, so why should one be enforced here?

Is it morally correct to deprive a child of access to information about their biological parents? Maybe, and maybe not, but there is nothing to say two men/women couldn't and wouldn't happily tell their child who their birth mother/father was. It just means that should one of them die, they won't immediately be thrust, while mourning, into a legal battle to continue to parent their child.

Withholding parent information in adoption has a long history but at least is extremely rare now. In mainly happens with single mothers with fathers being left off the cert and that is abhorrent and is child abuse. Also at least in adoption, you can share information without revealing identity.

An_Toirpin

Nokia6230i wrote: »

Wasn't sure which post was going to be the most obviously homophobic, the one that, ultimately harks back to a time when p********a was said to be akin to homosexuality.

I say harks back but yet, but ******* yet here we are with a poster saying this?

Think this is isolated? Think this "thought process" is in the minority?

Think on. Just look at any of the various Irish right wing groups (National Party for example) and the following they have.

Think of various Irish right wing pages such as the L*****l and the K******y J****l and the followings they have (the genuine ones).

THe National Party probably has ten supporters. It is a nonenitity but thanks for gaslighting me mate.

Annasopra

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Withholding parent information in adoption has a long history but at least is extremely rare now. In mainly happens with single mothers with fathers being left off the cert and that is abhorrent and is child abuse. Also at least in adoption, you can share information without revealing identity.

Mod

Your unnecessary linking of LGBT parents to child abuse is frankly quite disgusting. Repeating it is in breach of point 10 of the forum Charter. If you are willing to engage in civil and respectful discussion with us, listening to us and not soapboxing at us then please feel free to continue taking part in the discussion. If you cant do this and just want to keep mentioning child abuse then you will be breaching the forum charter. Its upto you. Continue to soapbox at us in trollish disrespectful uncivil language = threadban and possibly more.

As always discussions on mod actions are only by PM and not on thread.

An_Toirpin

There are no rights that straight people have that gays don’t.
Simple as.

Annasopra

An_Toirpin wrote: »

There are no rights that straight people have that gays don’t.
Simple as.

Dont post in the thread again. You are breaching point 10 of the forum charter.

Ten of Swords

P_1 wrote: »

It has gotten to big for the route. The commercialisation needs to be toned town a bit too. Like Amazon et al great you're giving money but does your float really have to be such a bloody monstrosity?

Like Gilead sponsoring the pride events in Cork while simultaneously trying to block access to generic PrEP?

P_1

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Like Gilead sponsoring the pride events in Cork while simultaneously trying to block access to generic PrEP?

I saw that and the reaction by the pride organisers to legitimate complaints about that leave a lot to be desired

Mr.Frame

P_1 wrote: »

I saw that and the reaction by the pride organisers to legitimate complaints about that leave a lot to be desired

Can I ask what did the organisers say with regard to this ?

Ten of Swords

This originally came about on July 31st when LGBT activist Rob O'Sullivan of the Cork Green Party spoke to Cork 96FM about pride. This is the interview, it is about 9 minutes long and quite a good listen.

https://soundcloud.com/corkgreens/you-need-to-look-at-who-the-sponsorship-is-coming-from-rob-osullivan-on-cork-pride

Anyway, Rob raised 2 issues with the presenter;
First he claimed that Cork Pride were demanding a fee of €250 for political parties to march in the parade under their banner. He said he was not happy with this and instead he and his colleagues would march as individuals in the parade (and not under a political banner) and instead donate the money to LGBT charities. The below link is a tweet from Cork Greens showing donation receipts

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/1025658456555094017

Second he questioned why Cork Pride was accepting sponsorship from Gilead which are currently attempting to block access to generic PrEP through the courts.

Later that day the Cork Greens issued a statement on Facebook and this was quoted in several newspapers.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=1866474623412459


The response from Cork Pride was reported in the Examiner and several local publications

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-pride-organisers-defend-controversial-sponsorship-859196.html

Kery Mullaly, a member of the organising committee, insisted that Pride’s links with Gilead were forged in part from requests by LGBT employees within the company and he also described the Green Party’s intervention as “counterproductive and negative”. "It is not in the spirit of what the Green Party is or should be about,” “Maybe they are trying to make themselves more relevant but perhaps they should be focusing on the positive things Cork Pride does."

So they basically ignored the central issue and their response was just nonsense about what the Green party should and shouldn't be doing. Made themselves look unprofessional in my opinion.

Mr.Frame

Ten of Swords wrote: »

This originally came about on July 31st when LGBT activist Rob O'Sullivan of the Cork Green Party spoke to Cork 96FM about pride. This is the interview, it is about 9 minutes long and quite a good listen.

https://soundcloud.com/corkgreens/you-need-to-look-at-who-the-sponsorship-is-coming-from-rob-osullivan-on-cork-pride

Anyway, Rob raised 2 issues with the presenter;
First he claimed that Cork Pride were demanding a fee of €250 for political parties to march in the parade under their banner. He said he was not happy with this and instead he and his colleagues would march as individuals in the parade (and not under a political banner) and instead donate the money to LGBT charities. The below link is a tweet from Cork Greens showing donation receipts

https://twitter.com/CorkGreens/status/1025658456555094017

Second he questioned why Cork Pride was accepting sponsorship from Gilead which are currently attempting to block access to generic PrEP through the courts.

Later that day the Cork Greens issued a statement on Facebook and this was quoted in several newspapers.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=1866474623412459


The response from Cork Pride was reported in the Examiner and several local publications

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cork-pride-organisers-defend-controversial-sponsorship-859196.html



So they basically ignored the central issue and their response was just nonsense about what the Green party should and shouldn't be doing. Made themselves look unprofessional in my opinion.

Quite surprised that political parties were asked for money to participate in the parade.
To me that is WRONG.
The organisers both here Dublin and Cork need to really look hard at themselves and see what Pride means to LGBT people.
It is about being seen, acceptance and protest. By pandering to the big corporations they are ignoring all this for the euro.
The parade should be of the gays by the gays for the gays.

I do not agree at all with companies and businesses jumping on the pride bandwagon as a means of advertising their businesses.

If the companies are that interested in LGBT issues let them sponsor events leading up to the parade , but stay out of OUR parade.

Annasopra

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Quite surprised that political parties were asked for money to participate in the parade.
To me that is WRONG.
The organisers both here Dublin and Cork need to really look hard at themselves and see what Pride means to LGBT people.
It is about being seen, acceptance and protest. By pandering to the big corporations they are ignoring all this for the euro.
The parade should be of the gays by the gays for the gays.

I do not agree at all with companies and businesses jumping on the pride bandwagon as a means of advertising their businesses.

If the companies are that interested in LGBT issues let them sponsor events leading up to the parade , but stay out of OUR parade.

Dublin Pride as far as I know ask parties to pay €500. I am not 100 percent on that though!

jobbridge4life

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Quite surprised that political parties were asked for money to participate in the parade.
To me that is WRONG.
The organisers both here Dublin and Cork need to really look hard at themselves and see what Pride means to LGBT people.
It is about being seen, acceptance and protest. By pandering to the big corporations they are ignoring all this for the euro.
The parade should be of the gays by the gays for the gays.

I do not agree at all with companies and businesses jumping on the pride bandwagon as a means of advertising their businesses.

If the companies are that interested in LGBT issues let them sponsor events leading up to the parade , but stay out of OUR parade.

I disagree. LGBT people are part and parcel of wider society and that includes working in, buying from these large businesses. I think it is a great thing that we live in a society where large businesses want to participate in pride, and if it helps to fund the parade etc. all the better. I think that their participation requires some balancing, as I have said before, but on the whole it is an undoubted positive.

hotmail.com

One possible solution is to cap number of marchers to about 20,000 to ensure the parade gets through the busy streets quickly. An assurance on the amount taking part could keep the council happy and bring the parade back down O'Connell Street.

The various groups could be allowed to take part on a rotating basis, one year in, one year off. Exceptions for lgbt organisations and supporters of course. The corporates can take turns.

P_1

hotmail.com wrote: »

One possible solution is to cap number of marchers to about 20,000 to ensure the parade gets through the busy streets quickly. An assurance on the amount taking part could keep the council happy and bring the parade back down O'Connell Street.

The various groups could be allowed to take part on a rotating basis, one year in, one year off. Exceptions for lgbt organisations and supporters of course. The corporates can take turns.

Was a concern on numbers the main reason given for changing the route?

Goodshape

P_1 wrote: »

Was a concern on numbers the main reason given for changing the route?

Last year I understood the reason to be the ongoing work on the new Luis tracks.

This year, I'm not sure. They just used the same route again.

baby and crumble

hotmail.com wrote: »

One possible solution is to cap number of marchers to about 20,000 to ensure the parade gets through the busy streets quickly. An assurance on the amount taking part could keep the council happy and bring the parade back down O'Connell Street.

The various groups could be allowed to take part on a rotating basis, one year in, one year off. Exceptions for lgbt organisations and supporters of course. The corporates can take turns.

That’d never work. Way too many people just join in on the route as it walks past them. You’d have to erect barriers along the whole route for that to work and police it even more.

Nokia6230i

baby and crumble wrote: »

That’d never work. Way too many people just join in on the route as it walks past them. You’d have to erect barriers along the whole route for that to work and police it even more.

Plus Pride, whether Trans or Dublin has to be about one thing; inclusivity, not excluding people or groups.

Mr.Frame

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I disagree. LGBT people are part and parcel of wider society and that includes working in, buying from these large businesses. I think it is a great thing that we live in a society where large businesses want to participate in pride, and if it helps to fund the parade etc. all the better. I think that their participation requires some balancing, as I have said before, but on the whole it is an undoubted positive.

So tell me , where were these big businesses before the marriage Referendum. Its amazing how so many have all of a sudden have decided they want to participate in Pride.

Annasopra

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I disagree. LGBT people are part and parcel of wider society and that includes working in, buying from these large businesses. I think it is a great thing that we live in a society where large businesses want to participate in pride, and if it helps to fund the parade etc. all the better. I think that their participation requires some balancing, as I have said before, but on the whole it is an undoubted positive.

I'm kinda not so sure. To me Pride is not about profit. Ultimately these large corporations want to hop on a pride bandwagon because its hip and trendy and will give them a good corporate image so they can make more profits. In a sense its almost exploiting us and exploiting our identities. It doesnt make pride a community about lgbt people. It makes pride a big long advertisement that people are paid to attend. Its about the large corporations creating an identity for us wealthy consumers who want their brand and product.

EdgeCase

Would it make sense to just sync it with either the June or August bank holiday? That way you’d have far less issue with traffic flows for the parade.

Mr.Frame

EdgeCase wrote: »

Would it make sense to just sync it with either the June or August bank holiday? That way you’d have far less issue with traffic flows for the parade.

The month of June was chosen for LGBT Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall riots, which occurred at the end of June 1969. As a result, many pride events are held during this month to recognize the impact LGBT people have had in the world.

Annasopra

EdgeCase wrote: »

Would it make sense to just sync it with either the June or August bank holiday? That way you’d have far less issue with traffic flows for the parade.

Not August BH cause Cork and Belfast do then. Ideally they shouldnt clash.

Nokia6230i

Mr.Frame wrote: »

The month of June was chosen for LGBT Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall riots, which occurred at the end of June 1969. As a result, many pride events are held during this month to recognize the impact LGBT people have had in the world.

And Dublins has always to my knowledge been held on the last Saturday of June as a result; there'll be no changing that aspect of it.

hotmail.com

baby and crumble wrote:

That’d never work. Way too many people just join in on the route as it walks past them. You’d have to erect barriers along the whole route for that to work and police it even more.

Surely if you significantly reduce the number of groups that can part, the numbers marching will reduce.

Anyway, it's just a thought. A shorter, sharper parade down O 'Connell Street where it should be.

Annasopra

I am currently on holidays in a small European city. It was so refreshing and really nice to observe a small community based pride that isnt about 1 giant big advertisement. It felt about community. It felt about Pride. The more I think about it the more I now think Dublin Pride really made a huge mistake 3/4 years ago going down the heavy commercial route. Pride really shouldnt be 1 large corporate profit driven advertisement parade pinkwashing our community and treating us merely as consumers and nothing else.

In my opinion I really think Dublin Pride needs to look at itself and tone down the corporate commercial consumerist emphasis. It needs to be about Pride not profit.

Ten of Swords

Hope you're enjoying the hol! Was there any big brand sponsorship of the parade you saw? I don't mean local businesses I mean the stereotypical fortune 500 companies, or was it mostly community driven? Sounds nice anyway