Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are you taking part in any LGBTQ events for pride month?

Options
1131416181928

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Mr.Frame wrote: »
    Thanks for the snide derogatory remarks . It is comments like THIs that LGBT have to put up with day in day out.

    But hey, sure "im only having a laugh,Ive gay friends anyway,how could i be homophobic"

    Oh dear, it's going to be a long war if you cannot have a laugh. I don't just have gay friends, I have gay family, in fact we were hit heavy with the gay gene on both sides. Which gives us all some evolutionary advantage at impromptu theatre and dancing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭zoe 3619


    Zorya wrote: »
    All this turmoil could so easily be solved. Every citizen must be compulsorily gay for the month of June - it's a pity June is not closer to November when we could put our compulsory moustaches to use, but, well, leave that issue with the me. In the compulsorily gay month of June, the ministry will (strictly ;)) enforce Kinky Mondays, Drag Wednesdays and all citizens, no matter the aesthetic state of their bottoms, are obliged to wear assless chaps on every Friday.

    Was that meant to be funny,or are you genuinely an idiot?
    Straight myself,and won't be attending any events,but only because I'm lazy and antisocial.
    Delighted to see it.Some people have suffered hugely because of their sexuality in the past.
    It's fantastic that things have moved on,and that's surely worth celebrating.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,675 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Zorya wrote: »
    Oh dear, it's going to be a long war if you cannot have a laugh. I don't just have gay friends, I have gay family, in fact we were hit heavy with the gay gene on both sides. Which gives us all some evolutionary advantage at impromptu theatre and dancing.


    Precisely the point made by Kenny Everett some 30 odd years ago now when he was challenged by Sinead O’ Connor on the Late Late Show, attempting to condemn him for what she imagined was his support for the Tory party on Section 28. She was of course attempting her usual playing the perpetual victim, and Kenny simply said that he turned up at the Conference because it was a jolly occasion :D

    Some people have no sense of humour about themselves, it’s one of the classic signs of belonging to a cult -

    Are cults harmful?

    To remain within the strict mental and social confines of a cult for even a short time can have the following effects:

    - Loss of choice and free will

    - Diminished intellectual ability, vocabulary and sense of humour

    - Reduced use of irony, abstractions and metaphors

    - Reduced capacity to form flexible and intimate relationships

    - Poor judgement

    - Members may become poorer as the cult siphons off their wealth

    - Physical deterioration

    - Malnutrition

    - Hallucinations, panic, dissociation, guilt, identity diffusion and paranoia

    - Neurotic, psychotic or suicidal tendencies



    Exploring the CULT in culture


  • Registered Users Posts: 766 ✭✭✭Mr.Frame


    Zorya wrote: »
    Oh dear, it's going to be a long war if you cannot have a laugh. I don't just have gay friends, I have gay family, in fact we were hit heavy with the gay gene on both sides. Which gives us all some evolutionary advantage at impromptu theatre and dancing.

    I laugh at funny things.

    But hey not only does your response fail, it actually gets worse with your stereotypical assumptions , that all LGBT people are into theatre and dancing.

    "Which gives us all some evolutionary advantage at impromptu theatre and dancing"

    If I were you I would just stop.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Zorya wrote: »
    All this turmoil could so easily be solved. Every citizen must be compulsorily gay for the month of June - it's a pity June is not closer to November when we could put our compulsory moustaches to use, but, well, leave that issue with the me. In the compulsorily gay month of June, the ministry will (strictly ;)) enforce Kinky Mondays, Drag Wednesdays and all citizens, no matter the aesthetic state of their bottoms, are obliged to wear assless chaps on every Friday.

    We already had a Freddie mercury. He is irreplaceable.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,675 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    We already had a Freddie mercury. He is irreplaceable.


    True!

    I did laugh at the one time someone was speaking of people who were incredibly talented, and mentioned Panto Bliss in the same context as Freddie Mercury! There is simply no comparison :pac:


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Mr.Frame wrote:
    But hey not only does your response fail, it actually gets worse with your stereotypical assumptions , that all LGBT people are into theatre and dancing.

    Haha. Oh wait. You are serious?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    We already had a Freddie mercury. He is irreplaceable.

    True :) That was back in the good old days ... When even the straight studs could be camp.

    tumblr_mrosr6iCOn1sy2z1to1_500.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I understand why nozz would do it - because they enjoy painting themselves as the naive, put-upon, misunderstood intellectual that’s far too intelligent for their own good.

    Nice of you to make up falsehoods and personal insults about me while talking about me in the third person. But in fact I explained EXACTLY why I often make a direct point and a general point at the same time and it is no way matching with your inventions.
    I don’t think it’s possible to empathise with someone on the basis of something that they have experience of, and you don’t, or I don’t.

    And you were wrong then and you are still wrong now. Perhaps YOU lack that ability, but I certainly do not. Nor does anyone else I know. Again then, as now on this thread, the fact remains that DIRECT experience of something is not required to empathise with people who are or have experienced it. It simply is not, and seemingly never has been, a requirement. You might want to pretend it is, or perhaps it is for you, but you are speaking only for you here.

    I can empathise with someone, even a child, who experiences a crisis pregnancy. I can empathise with someone who finds themselves homeless. And in the context of this thread I can very much empathise with homosexuals and their experiences and problems and struggles. And at no point does any of that require me to be female, pregnant, a child, homeless or homosexual.
    That’s not identity politics.

    That in itself is not identity politics, but more the foundation of much of the problems with identity politics. My claim was it is the latter. I am not sure anyone is claiming the former.

    The most insidious and damaging aspect of Identity Politics in my opinion is where people feel, are made to feel, or are directly told that they can not hold an opinion about a group or another because they are not in that group. As I said before on the thread, yesterday, I think anyone who actively makes that move in the conversation should be politely asked to let the grown ups talk in peace. Lines like "I don’t think their opinions about something they have no experience of can be taken seriously" for me are vacuous white noise you have not backed up in any way.

    It also unfortunately leads some speakers in my experience to decry Identity Politics as a whole. Which I also think is the wrong move. As long as we HAVE identity we will require SOME level of Identity Politics in my opinion. My position is that we should strive to do that right, not strive to avoid doing it at all.
    it is entirely based upon their own preconceived notions of what they imagine an an experience must be like for someone else, ignoring the fact that they can never be that someone else who has experience of something they don’t.

    That is not how empathy works however. So this would seem to be the focal point of your errors on the subject. I do not believe experience and emotion is unique to every scenario myself. Rather I believe that it is more modular than that and your experience or emotions in any given moment is made up of elements that are common across many many other experiences and emotions.

    Our ability to empathise with someone in a situation different to our own therefore is that their experience and emotions of that situation is made up of elements each of us have or have had in other situations ourselves. The elements of the experience of being homeless, or experiencing a crisis pregnancy, or of being in a persecuted minority are ones we can all have shared in other contexts. And piecing those things together allows us to construct a level of empathy with the other.

    I fear some people think you have to experience EXACTLY The same thing somehow in order to be able to empathise, understand, or put yourself in the shoes of the other. But that in no way appears to be how empathy and understanding ACTUALLY works. And thank goodness for that as the range of human experience is so diverse that no effective level of human empathy would be possible at all if it were actually so. But the reality is we can feel deep empathy for humans in situations VASTLY different to our own. A well off privileged white guy like me can feel it for the 5 year old starving child in a developing country for example and be moved to give charitably to their cause. Or I can be, and still am, similarly moved to work with Syrian Refugees here in Germany because I can empathise with their plight of losing their home and country and being forced to flee.

    Empathy is defined as sharing in the feelings of another. The idea empathy is not possible SEEMS to be based on the notion that the feelings of another are unique to their scenario or situation. I see no reason to believe that is at all so. The feelings people experience in a wide diversity of scenarios are, quite often, the same feelings. Fear is fear, regardless of whether you feel it because you are homeless and you might be attacked, or you are pregnant and your father might disown you, or you are a refugee and you might get blown up or shot as you cross the border. Empathy is based on a shared basis of human emotion. Not a shared basis of human experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yeah.... I feel like an ally by just treating gay people like normal people and not people who should be celebrated.

    As I said in the post you quoted it is not really the people I think I am celebrating most of the time. It is the entire dynamic that people in general can love openly, choose their partners, and marry and parent in ways that many of us privileged take for granted.

    For example I celebrate also the memory of Mildred Loving and her husband. And at a pride event I went to once I created a badge to wear with her face on it. For those that do not remember she was up before the courts in our not too distant past for the crime of marrying a man of white skin color when she was black. I found it a meaningful badge to wear at the event and it attracted a lot of positive comments and questions.

    We still live in a society where people can openly call homosexuals infected zombies. Where people claim falsely that gay parenting is somehow less ideal than heterosexual parenting. Where gay people have issues with giving blood and other issues with our medical and insurance industries. Where people think Pride is a celebration of sex acts. And more. I agree with you on the progress and current state of Ireland. I also agree with the other users saying there is still much to be done. I can agree with most of what you both are saying, without any conflict or contradiction in fact.
    FFS. Nobody knows what it's like to be anyone else, regardless of how many things in common they have.

    No one knows EXACTLY what it is like to be someone else. But this is not a 0:1 game we are playing here. It is not like anyone, least of all me, is claiming that we can 100% experience the situation of the other. If that were the requirement here than as I said yesterday.... I can not even share empathy with MYSELF from 10 years ago or 10 years from now. Let alone with anyone else!

    But I sure as hell DO know what it is "like" to be someone else. We are a species with a common basis for experience, a common human biology, and a mostly common set of drives and desires, fears and concerns. And that shared human experience very much does give us a basis to know what it is "like" to be someone else.

    I suspect when people say this level of empathy is not possible, that are assuming we think we know EXACTLY what it is like to be someone else. But A) No one is claiming that is true and B) No one is claiming that that is required.

    Take the homeless thing which I still think is a useful analogy here which is why I referred to it. I have never been homeless. So I will never know EXACTLY what that is like. However what elements do you think constitute that experience?

    An ongoing fear for your personal safety. A feeling society is working against you rather than to support you. A feeling there is no place you can call home. Lying on the side of the street wondering if the next person to pass will ignore you, attack you, or help you. Feeling entirely helpless. Feeling a lack of autonomy. I could list many many more elements that could constitute the experience of a homeless person, any combination of which any given homeless person will experience.

    And I can draw on my experience of each of those elements and put them together to construct an empathy with, and a knowledge of what it is "like", to be that person.

    Empathy of someone experiencing XYZ does not require I experience XYZ. It can equally require I experience, or have experienced, X.... Y.... and Z...... and I can construct an approximation of XYZ from there. That is how empathy works.
    People get attacked for being fat, wearing glasses, being ginger. People will always find a reason to attack someone if they want to. There are always going to be bad people.

    Here I fully agree with you that this exists ALSO. I would not paint it in a "This not that exists" way. I think both are a problem.

    Certainly with bullying in schools for example..... a lot of people make the error of thinking bullies bully because of some difference. For example I have heard it claimed that gay parenting is a bad idea because the children of gay parents will be targeted for this reason for bullying.

    The reality is however that bullies are cowards who pick the target first, and the material for the bullying second. So as you rightly say if they had gay parents then all the better for the bully. If they did NOT have such parents, the bully will look for something else like glasses, ginger hair, and so forth.

    That happens absolutely! You are right. But I do not think it is either or. I think it ALSO happens quite often, maybe even equally often, that people are targeted for who they are first, rather than second.
    With regards to parents, I agree there are a lot of things that need to change. No just a gay issue. Single father's are discriminated just as much. Not really gay issues rather than just issues.

    Again I agree mostly, to a point. There are all kinds of parenting issues. However I do not think we compare like with like when we look at single parents for example. There genuinely ARE issues with single parenting.

    There are genuine reasons they need more help from us as a society (in fact one user on this thread has advocated in the past with doing away with social welfare for single parents and not supporting them at all...... go figure) and genuine reasons their situation is "less ideal" than a couple parenting.

    With gay parenting however when people claim that constellation is "less ideal" they have zero evidence, reasoning, data or arguments to offer to support that contention. And so we need to combat that ignorance.

    In fact comically enough in their desperation to manufacture data to that effect they normally try to prove the lack of a father, or lack of a mother, is detrimental in a gay parenting situation by..... wait for this and brace yourself as it will blow you away for the sheer dumbass idiocy of it....... quoting studies about the social outcomes of children of SINGLE parents!!!!
    Not at all. I've said on numerous occasions that I have no issue with Pride. I just said I wouldn't being my daughter. No big deal. L

    Somehow me thinking that makes me a homophobe.

    To play devils advocate on that I can see both sides. I think anyone lambasting you for not wanting to take your child there is being an a-hat. There is nothing wrong with you not wanting to bring here there. However some of the reasons you expressed as to WHY you do not want to.... I can understand them having received a certain level of push back. Mainly as they constituted you claiming Pride was a celebration of something it is not at all a celebration of.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Sorry, I've been tied up. I assume you're talking about me?

    To be honest I do not think so, but I am not sure. I did not go back to see WHO I was talking about when I made that comment. It just struck me suddenly.... so I went back to edit the post..... that in the "War is Over" "No it isnt" "Yes it is" exchange that was going on between a few users..... none of the people disagreeing with the user stopped to actually ask him why he thought it wasn't.

    They were more interested in simply telling him it was over. One user even, not you as I recall, listing some of the victories.

    Not one person against him, unless I missed it, thought to simply stop and ask him the obvious question of "Well if your war is not over, what battles do you see as still being there to win?".

    And it just struck me as off because I know that if *I* was claiming it was over and he was telling me it was not..... it would have been the FIRST question, not second, tenth, or last, that I would have found myself asking. And I wondered what makes me different in that regard.
    Talk of wars being won is probably overly emotive (I'm not sure if I used those words or not)

    Perhaps you are right but some time ago Sam Harris started using the phrase "The war of ideas" and I found myself clicking with it enough at the time that it is a phrase I now use quite often in one form or another. Perhaps it is sometimes more emotive than needs be, I will think about that for awhile, but in general I think it a useful phrase.
    Where do you feel we as a society or as a country are failing our gay citizens? I just can't see it? What do you think we should be doing, that we haven't already done?
    What specific problems do gay people encounter in modern day Ireland?

    Well I think the homosexuals on this thread are better placed to answer this as having lived in Germany now 10 years I am a little out of touch and what I am about to write below might be out of date.... so hands up openly if I make any errors here....

    There is a lot of ignorance still to work with, especially around the issue of their ability to parent. During the referendum that we won nicely for example I heard a lot of people even those voting yes saying "Oh I absolutely want them to be able to marry..... I just hope to goodness they dont get to adopt or to parent". Yet there is not just low but NO evidence on offer at this time to suggest they are even a tiny bit less ideal as parents than a heterosexual configuration. In fact some studies, especially of lesbian parents, show they have BETTER outcomes. Though I think there are reasons to be wary of there why that might be slightly skewed too.

    I can have all the anal sex with my partner I want too and stroll in and give blood tomorrow. Gay men "may donate blood if they have not engaged in oral or anal sex with another man at least 12 months prior to a donation. ". I think we need to work on something there too because while I understand the concerns of such a procedure..... it is not the best approach I suspect and quite discriminatory. It is also nonsense and unworkable as it is based on the applicant being honest. And it discriminates against the type of person we would otherwise MOST want to be giving blood..... those in steady relationships.

    There is also the ignorance of other things to work with. Including, but not limited to, the ignorance we see on this thread about what things like "Pride" are even about. There are genuinely people telling us here that they think Pride is a celebration of what they do with their genitals.

    There was in the past also issues, and I am COMPLETELY out of date on this now so I genuinely do not k now if it is applicable any more, with certain types of life insurance and medical insurance discrimination with gay people. Perhaps someone can talk to that, as I am in absolute territory of ignorance now. There is also the issue of PrEP. Again I am out of touch there but when I last looked at it the figures seemed to suggest that providing it free to the homosexual community as "prevention better than treatment" would actually be LESS of a burden on Health Insurance reserves than the "treatment over prevention" approach. Again..... admitting absolute ignorance on the current state of affairs here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Mr.Frame wrote: »
    Gay parents are still fighting for equality,particularly gay men parents.
    There is still no law with regard to recognition of LGBT families who have children by means of surrogacy ..

    Biological fathers have no automatic right of guardianship, co-habituating couples are basically treated as strangers - what society deems a family and what the state deems a family has gotten completely out of sync.
    It may well be an issue that effects gay people but it's in no way an gay specific issue.
    Mr.Frame wrote: »
    Other problems include, verbal abuse from others,homophobic attacks, and not feeling comfortable holding your partners hand walking down a street for fear of abuse

    Assholes will be assholes - that will never stop, the same laws that "protect" me and my missus from this crap apply to you and your boyfriend.
    Again it's not just a gay issue.
    To be honest I do not think so, but I am not sure. .

    My bad so, I must be getting paranoid in my old age;)
    There is a lot of ignorance still to work with, especially around the issue of their ability to parent. During the referendum that we won nicely for example I heard a lot of people even those voting yes saying "Oh I absolutely want them to be able to marry..... I just hope to goodness they dont get to adopt or to parent". Yet there is not just low but NO evidence on offer at this time to suggest they are even a tiny bit less ideal as parents than a heterosexual configuration. In fact some studies, especially of lesbian parents, show they have BETTER outcomes. Though I think there are reasons to be wary of there why that might be slightly skewed too..

    I'd say there is definitely an issue here alright, I know a lot of people who feel this way. I'll admit I have a slight touch of it myself, to be honest with you I don't know why, maybe it's just the "strangeness" of it. Despite what several posters have said on here, it is factually still a very unusual situation in Ireland. I don't know the statistics of same sex parent families but anecdotally I'd be surprised if it's 0.1% of the whole - by any one's definition that's very unusual.
    I can have all the anal sex with my partner I want too and stroll in and give blood tomorrow. Gay men "may donate blood if they have not engaged in oral or anal sex with another man at least 12 months prior to a donation." I think we need to work on something there too because while I understand the concerns of such a procedure..... it is not the best approach I suspect and quite discriminatory. .

    But it's supposed to be discriminatory?

    If you we're in need of blood or platelets, would you not like to think that the health service had taken every effort to reduce even the slightest risk to you? You are after all weak and vulnerable, as attested to by the fact you need to be pumped full of someone elses blood just to stay alive!

    I'd much rather they be over cautious than let every Tom, Dick and Harry donate so as not to hurt their feelings.

    It has nothing to do with anal sex (I don't think the questionnaire even asks that) it has to do with an actuary somewhere saying that if you are having gay sex you are x% more likely to carry y -and you can also be fairly sure that if they say it, it is in reality the case.

    It is also nonsense and unworkable as it is based on the applicant being honest. And it discriminates against the type of person we would otherwise MOST want to be giving blood..... those in steady relationships. .

    Most wanting and most suitable are not the same thing. I'd like my blood to come from the most suitable person, I can't see how anyone can disagree with that.

    There is also the ignorance of other things to work with. Including, but not limited to, the ignorance we see on this thread about what things like "Pride" are even about. There are genuinely people telling us here that they think Pride is a celebration of what they do with their genitals. .

    It's an oversimplification of course, but at the end of the day your sexuality is defined by who you have sex with (or at least who you'd like to have sex with) So it's quite obvious where a statement like that comes from, even if it's a bit snarky.
    There was in the past also issues, and I am COMPLETELY out of date on this now so I genuinely do not k now if it is applicable any more, with certain types of life insurance and medical insurance discrimination with gay people. Perhaps someone can talk to that, as I am in absolute territory of ignorance now. There is also the issue of PrEP. Again I am out of touch there but when I last looked at it the figures seemed to suggest that providing it free to the homosexual community as "prevention better than treatment" would actually be LESS of a burden on Health Insurance reserves than the "treatment over prevention" approach. .

    I don't know what PrEP is, but insurance companies are all about the dollars. They don't care if you're gay or straight, they only care what you might cost them and what you can pay them.

    It will be the same as the blood thing - an actuary will have said doing this works out x% cheaper and that's it, the decision is set in stone. If something happens tomorrow to change the costs they would flip flop in a heartbeat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Thanks for the level headed and rational and non emotive responses and patience.
    I'd say there is definitely an issue here alright, I know a lot of people who feel this way. I'll admit I have a slight touch of it myself, to be honest with you I don't know why, maybe it's just the "strangeness" of it.

    Partly. We are not a species that responds well to "the other" or people differing from the norm.

    But I also think bad studies, and the misuse of good studies, has a LOT to answer for here. As I said to The Dunne above for example there was a lot of media articles, and malicious anti gay parenting speakers, who used genuine studies on issues with single parenting..... to construct a narrative that "Children need a father" or "Children need a mother".

    The children in the studies suffered genuine poorer outcomes because they had one single parent. But some people with contrived malice used that to construct a narrative that the harm was not because an entire parent was missing from the fray.... but that parents GENDER was missing from the fray.

    And the repercussions of that is one of the battles we still have to fight today to bring equality to gay parenting.
    Despite what several posters have said on here, it is factually still a very unusual situation in Ireland. I don't know the statistics of same sex parent families but anecdotally I'd be surprised if it's 0.1% of the whole - by any one's definition that's very unusual.

    In fairness to both parties there, I do not think they were actually in disagreement. I think they were just operating under slightly differing definitions of the term "unusual" and were arguing over nothing because of that. For me "unusual" and "statistically not the norm" are not direct synonyms. For other people they are. For me "unusual" means something not just statistically rare, but something that actually defies rational expectation. For example I recently hit a baseball at VERY high speed and power at a relatively weak window pane. It did not shatter or even crack. THAT was unusual.

    For my gay parenting, gay people, people with a disability, murders, rapists, paedophiles, even astrophysicists are statistically not the norm. They are however not at all "unusual".

    We were just using the terms differently I suspect and in reality there is nothing to see here.
    But it's supposed to be discriminatory? If you we're in need of blood or platelets, would you not like to think that the health service had taken every effort to reduce even the slightest risk to you?

    I do, but I think there are ways to do it that are less discriminatory and also more effective. For example the current system is based on honesty. After all if a gay man presents claiming not to have oral or anal sex for 12 months.... how the hell are we to know that is true??? If a heterosexual presents however, they might have been having a rare old time at the anal sex twice a day with women all over the place every day for the last 10 years for all I know.

    Further the system discriminates not just against homosexuals, but the homosexuals we would WANT to be giving blood. For example homosexuals in long term committed relationships. They are likely having anal and/or oral sex as much as any heterosexual couple is. Yet the fact they are in a committed relationship makes the risk of their blood much less than a single heterosexual male.

    It is a nonsense and ineffective system I would suggest therefore. Especially as it is honesty based. For example during the abortion referendum people claimed we should only allow abortion in the case of rape and incest. Great, but that EFFECTIVELY means abortion for all. Why? Because all any woman who wants an abortion needs to do is tick the "yes I was raped" box on the application. Job done.
    It's an oversimplification of course, but at the end of the day your sexuality is defined by who you have sex with

    I grant you a lot of people do think that is how sexuality is defined. There was a useful although long even by my standards post yesterday by a user calling that into question though. And in fact some harm has come from defining sexuality in that way.

    For example the CDC statistics are often used by anti homosexuals to make the homosexual lifestyle look a lot worse medically speaking than it actually is. However the CDC studies are based on the grouping "MSM" which defines sexuality by who the group studied has sex with, and how. In other words it focused SOLELY on men.... so leaving lesbians out of it....... and almost EXCLUSIVELY on men who engage with anal sex.......... and even included many men who have sex with men who are not even themselves homosexual or bisexual. So the CDC figures are a study of male on male anal sex and not a representative study of homosexuality at all.

    And some strident anti homosexual speakers positively have fallen over themselves to misrepresent those studies with gusto and some amount of glee. Publically, in the media, and on forums like this.

    As was pointed out by that user yesterday however Sexuality is defined by an ongoing dynamic of attraction and not at all on who you have sex with or who you have one off flings with or even..... and this is the one that seemingly gets people worked up..... who you might have a one off long term relationship with.

    So on one hand I guess the definitions can get pedantic and pointless. But on the other it can have actual repercussions on the discourse and on actual policy and procedure. So I guess at best all we can do is be sure which it is at any given time.
    I don't know what PrEP is, but insurance companies are all about the dollars. They don't care if you're gay or straight, they only care what you might cost them and what you can pay them.

    My knowledge of it is low and not recent too I admit. It is a drug that I am told has had remarkable effects on preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS to the point that apparently making it available to the entire community would be cheaper in the long term than dealing with only the people who contract those diseases.

    I could however be talking out of my hoop as it were though as as I said my knowledge of the subject is not recent. If memory serves however I think the only argument against rolling it out I heard was that the initial outlay was high even though the long term savings would be massive and people were of the attitude "Why should we be facilitating the gay lifestyle by paying for drugs to support their perverted desire to have unprotected anal sex" and that attitude over rode their concern for the well being of gay people, and our long term ability to combat a disease more cheaply that effects us all gay and straight alike.

    But I really am floundering here. I either need to update my knowledge on this subject, or someone more int he know than me needs to speak to it. CG? Mr Frame? Joey? You guys got anything to add here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭cgcsb



    What do you think we should be doing, that we haven't already done?

    You could start by not moaning about pride
    What specific problems do gay people encounter in modern day Ireland?

    harassment, intimidation, discrimination in employment opportunities etc. all in the present tense.

    Then there's also the fact that we didn't just appear in 2017, we have formative years before that in which many of us were robbed of our childhood/teenage years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Rather few people have. Is it not entirely possible to empathise with someone based on intellect and compassion, without necessarily having experienced verbatim that which the person(s) being empathised with have?

    that's sympathy, empathy is a different concept, based on personal experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,171 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You could start by not moaning about pride



    harassment, intimidation, discrimination in employment opportunities etc. all in the present tense.

    Then there's also the fact that we didn't just appear in 2017, we have formative years before that in which many of us were robbed of our childhood/teenage years.

    There seems to be an attitude of "we gave you gay marriage, what more do you bloody want" as if gay marriage solved everything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    cgcsb wrote: »
    You could start by not moaning about pride

    Perhaps! :) But lets olive branch a bit in both directions here and demonstrate the level of cordiality that we would like in return. It is a useful question to ask and answer peacefully. Even I as someone who works hard and often with the community on issues find I would benefit from hearing answers to that question from people such as yourself.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    harassment, intimidation, discrimination in employment opportunities etc. all in the present tense.

    Women have the same issues quite often too. I often find it difficult to pin down specific and clear actionable items and plans and campaign points in relation to those concerns though myself. What would your suggestions be? Not TOO general or TOO specific.... but basically adumbrate what you think useful first steps would be in that direction.
    There seems to be an attitude of "we gave you gay marriage, what more do you bloody want" as if gay marriage solved everything.

    Ah I remember with fondness when Christopher Hitchens said "Gay Marriage? I am waiting for Gay Divorce!". Tongue in cheek of course, but I think he was suggesting it would be every bit as fabulous and flamboyant :)

    But yes I agree, we fought hard for gay marriage and it was hard won and very welcome. I do not think we should stand for a narrative that suggests they threw a dog a bone to appease as if they were doing a favour rather than granting a deserved equality.

    It is great that society is recognising that level of equality. But that does not mean it should be expected in a "Oh, the things we do for you" tone of voice either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    cgcsb wrote: »
    that's sympathy, empathy is a different concept, based on personal experience.

    No, it's not - empathy is merely the ability to imagine yourself in another persons position.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    You could start by not moaning about pride.

    Jaysus, get over yourself would you. Everyone doesn't need to agree with everything you do. You're coming across as quite needy.


    cgcsb wrote: »
    harassment, intimidation, discrimination in employment opportunities etc. all in the present tense

    All illegal, and all are equally applicable to any and every other group of people in this country, they are simply not gay issues. Do you think no one else gets harassed, intimidated or discriminated against?

    There will always be assholes. You seem to be labouring under the false idea that Utopia is the birth right and life experience of every non gay person.

    cgcsb wrote: »
    Then there's also the fact that we didn't just appear in 2017, we have formative years before that in which many of us were robbed of our childhood/teenage years.

    As I've said before, you've a chip on your shoulder. The past can't be changed, let it go. You should really try to live in the present with an eye to the future.
    There seems to be an attitude of "we gave you gay marriage, what more do you bloody want" as if gay marriage solved everything.

    We "gave" you equality. I use the quotes because gave is the wrong word, it wasn't ours to take in the first place, so it wasn't ours to give back. But what's done is done, I'm not going to spend my time apologising for something I had no part in, my only involvement in the whole equality thing was to vote to put it right.

    I'm not your enemy in any way, but I also don't owe you jack shít!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    No, it's not - empathy is merely the ability to imagine yourself in another persons position.

    Your junior cert English book would have disagreed:

    https://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy

    Jaysus, get over yourself would you. Everyone doesn't need to agree with everything you do. You're coming across as quite needy.

    I don't need anything from the likes of you. :pac: you asked what else can be done, I gave you an example.
    All illegal, and all are equally applicable to any and every other group of people in this country, they are simply not gay issues. Do you think no one else gets harassed, intimidated or discriminated against?

    Right so it happens to other people as well. Not seeing what point this is making.
    There will always be assholes. You seem to be labouring under the false idea that Utopia is the birth right and life experience of every non gay person.
    No, I'm really not.
    As I've said before, you've a chip on your shoulder. The past can't be changed, let it go. You should really try to live in the present with an eye to the future.

    I don't have a chip, that's your opinion/accusation. I, like many gay people have suffered because of a homphobic society, I can't undo that, but I'm sure as sh!t not going to hide myself away now, because someone on the internet says things are different now so I should just make myself silent and invisible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    No, it's not - empathy is merely the ability to imagine yourself in another persons position.

    Empathy is a very interesting subject in and of itself, though in some ways off topic here but also relevant as I said to the more pernicious effects of Identity Politics.

    To a degree empathy, both physical and emotional, is not merely imagining yourself in the others position. But it involves actively experiencing some of what the other person is to a degree too.

    Of course physical empathy is easier to discuss and evidence in this regard but the premise is similar for emotional empathy. But for example when you scan the brain of someone sticking a needle into their hand you see certain areas, including the pain centres, light up.

    If however you scan the brain of someone WATCHING that person sticking a needle into their own hand..... similar parts of the brain, including the pain centres, also light up.

    You are, in essence, actively experiencing the other persons experience. We, thankfully, do not actively experience all of it at the conscious level as the brain suppresses it. Despite your "pain centre" lighting up you do not actively experience the pain because your brain suppresses that part of the experience for your consciousness. But the brain itself IS experiencing it.

    In fact there are disorders where that suppression fails and you actively do feel the others pain. If I had some cameras, some time, and more literary skill than I do I have an idea for a comedy sketch based on two such people having a fight. Though I suspect something like that has been done already, I just cant recall where I saw it.

    TLDR suffice to say therefore that empathy is a lot more than an exercise in imagination. It involves some level of actual shared experience too. This is born of the brain and much of human biology being modular in nature too and was probably therefore an accident in evolution really.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Your junior cert English book would have disagreed:

    https://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy .

    The oxford English dictionary agrees with me, that's enough for me!

    empathy
    noun

    The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.


    The ability to understand and share - absolutely no requirement for having exactly experienced them yourself. If that was a requirement empathy would in fact be impossible, no two people ever really experience the same thing.


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Right so it happens to other people as well. Not seeing what point this is making. .
    The point is it's just life, not homophobia.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    No, I'm really not. .

    :rolleyes:

    cgcsb wrote: »
    I don't have a chip, that's your opinion/accusation. I, like many gay people have suffered because of a homphobic society, I can't undo that, but I'm sure as sh!t not going to hide myself away now, because someone on the internet says things are different now so I should just make myself silent and invisible.

    You have a massive chip, as evidenced by shít like the below.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    I don't need anything from the likes of you. :pac: . .

    If I had said anything like that to you you'd no doubt be screaming homophobia and sobbing into an overpriced rainbow hanky!

    Does that make your remark heterophobic? I don't think so.
    Is it evidence that you want to oppress straight people? No, of course it isn't.

    I think it's more likely just you being a bit of a twat.......because of that chip on your shoulder!


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,816 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    There seems to be an attitude of "we gave you gay marriage, what more do you bloody want" as if gay marriage solved everything.

    And thats almost a power control complex too that some people think it was theirs to give too

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cops-marching-in-pride-is-not-a-sign-of-progress-founding-member-of-dublin-pride-backs-alternative-event-930569.html

    It would seem that some in the LGBT community don't consider it a celebration of equal rights where straight people can be the minority.

    Reminds me of the Trans article complaining male to female weren't included in the conversation on the 8th referendum.

    Be interesting to see how much of the LGBT community support this alternative parade.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,171 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Calhoun wrote: »
    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cops-marching-in-pride-is-not-a-sign-of-progress-founding-member-of-dublin-pride-backs-alternative-event-930569.html

    It would seem that some in the LGBT community don't consider it a celebration of equal rights where straight people can be the minority.

    Reminds me of the Trans article complaining male to female weren't included in the conversation on the 8th referendum.

    Be interesting to see how much of the LGBT community support this alternative parade.

    he's not wrong. It is a celebration of gay people fighting for their rights.
    “I’m not saying anyone shouldn’t go to Dublin Pride, I understand why people go, but today’s celebration has become a cheap opportunity for businesses to promote themselves, and for state bodies to give an appearance of inclusivity without having to do anything very substantial.

    “There’s a chequered history between the Garda and Dublin Pride. For years I was liaison with the Garda, and the truth is we weren’t treated very respectfully, we never got the policing we asked for and we were not protected.

    “I have no objection of members of the Garda taking part in a personal capacity, but we’ve forgotten what Pride is supposed to be about. It’s about resistance and solidarity, the fact that we will defend each other in good times and bad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    he's not wrong. It is a celebration of gay people fighting for their rights.

    So its not really about inclusion and being equal? Its something only for the gay people and they should decide who is allowed attend ect.

    I generally can go along with that, as its not really something that is aimed at wider society or inclusion the natural conclusion is that it should go back to being a small niche celebration for maybe a day and wider society need bother about it.

    You cannot have it both ways i am afraid though, part of becoming more accepted in society is the band wagoning of corporations and government entities. I personally wouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    he's not wrong. It is a celebration of gay people fighting for their rights.

    So what are these rights you seek, the ones which I have and you dont?


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,171 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    So what are these rights you seek, the ones which I have and you dont?

    the right to walk down the street holding hands with another man without fear of abuse or worse. that would be nice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,171 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Calhoun wrote: »
    So its not really about inclusion and being equal? Its something only for the gay people and they should decide who is allowed attend ect.

    I generally can go along with that, as its not really something that is aimed at wider society or inclusion the natural conclusion is that it should go back to being a small niche celebration for maybe a day and wider society need bother about it.

    You cannot have it both ways i am afraid though, part of becoming more accepted in society is the band wagoning of corporations and government entities. I personally wouldnt look a gift horse in the mouth.

    People are making far too much of this month thing. It is still one parade on one day.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 53 ✭✭FaxingBerlin


    the right to walk down the street holding hands with another man without fear of abuse or worse. that would be nice.

    I dont think that will ever happen.
    You're always going to have people gawking at you.Maybe in another couple of hundred years.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,171 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I dont think that will ever happen.
    You're always going to have people gawking at you.Maybe in another couple of hundred years.

    I'm not talking about gawking. i'm talking about abuse.


Advertisement