How are ye dealing with the compulsory homosexuality in Ireland?

Chris_Heilong

The whole homosexual thing is always being pushed through media in order to try and normalise it, and I think they have succeeded. Although the vast majority of people in the west might not support homosexuality they are tolerant of it which could not be said 30 years ago. I am also tolerant of it but I dislike when movies and tv shows especially Netflix overly represent by have at least one gay character in every show and showing gay kissing/sex scenes is completely not necessary and uncomfortable for straight people to watch. Tolerance is about accepting the existence, occurrence, or practice of something but it does not mean that you actually like 'liking' that thing.

alastair

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The whole homosexual thing is always being pushed through media in order to try and normalise it, and I think they have succeeded. Although the vast majority of people in the west might not support homosexuality they are tolerant of it which could not be said 30 years ago. I am also tolerant of it but I dislike when movies and tv shows especially Netflix overly represent by have at least one gay character in every show and showing gay kissing/sex scenes is completely not necessary and uncomfortable for straight people to watch. Tolerance is about accepting the existence, occurrence, or practice of something but it does not mean that you actually like 'liking' that thing.

Not uncomfortable here chum. Carry on.

batgoat

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The whole homosexual thing is always being pushed through media in order to try and normalise it, and I think they have succeeded. Although the vast majority of people in the west might not support homosexuality they are tolerant of it which could not be said 30 years ago. I am also tolerant of it but I dislike when movies and tv shows especially Netflix overly represent by have at least one gay character in every show and showing gay kissing/sex scenes is completely not necessary and uncomfortable for straight people to watch. Tolerance is about accepting the existence, occurrence, or practice of something but it does not mean that you actually like 'liking' that thing.

I think you're definitely underestimating both the decency of people in Ireland and much of the west. Eg I have a 72 year old mother who doesn't have some strange dislike of people being gay, if any of her children or grandchildren came out, it would make zero difference to her. She views it as normal and most people I know view it as normal. The media representing gay people etc is more a reflection that our views have thankfully matured, nothing to do with a normalisation as it is already normal to the vast majority of people.

gmisk

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The whole homosexual thing is always being pushed through media in order to try and normalise it, and I think they have succeeded. Although the vast majority of people in the west might not support homosexuality they are tolerant of it which could not be said 30 years ago. I am also tolerant of it but I dislike when movies and tv shows especially Netflix overly represent by have at least one gay character in every show and showing gay kissing/sex scenes is completely not necessary and uncomfortable for straight people to watch. Tolerance is about accepting the existence, occurrence, or practice of something but it does not mean that you actually like 'liking' that thing.

I have to sit through plenty of straight kissing/sex scenes in movies tv etc but you dont hear me whinging about it, christ you have little to moan about, if you dont like it dont watch it.

ollkiller

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The whole homosexual thing is always being pushed through media in order to try and normalise it, and I think they have succeeded. Although the vast majority of people in the west might not support homosexuality they are tolerant of it which could not be said 30 years ago. I am also tolerant of it but I dislike when movies and tv shows especially Netflix overly represent by have at least one gay character in every show and showing gay kissing/sex scenes is completely not necessary and uncomfortable for straight people to watch. Tolerance is about accepting the existence, occurrence, or practice of something but it does not mean that you actually like 'liking' that thing.

I'm straight and don't find it uncomfortable. I used to when i was younger but i retrained myself and grew out of it. It's pretty easy to do. Do you think gay people find watching straight people kissing uncomfortable. If you want something uncomfortable to watch then try watching an episode of Fair City.

tayto lover

Lux23 wrote: »

Who are these people?

Don’t know their names and wouldn’t be asking as it would give them the attention they don’t deserve.

hatrickpatrick

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The mixed race thing is hugely disproportionate for sure, I've noticed that myself. I don't think it's any agenda being pushed though, it's just advertisers wanting to appear modern and inclusive, and sure why wouldn't they?

I think that's the root of the problem though, it doesn't make them appear modern and inclusive, it makes them look like they want to appear modern and inclusive. That's where the term 'virtue signalling' comes from and it does piss people off, it comes across as cringe at best and hypocritical at worst.

EDIT: I know I'm always quoting this show on this forum, but another relevant Yes Minister quote:

Producer: Minister, would you mind not leaning forward towards the camera like that? It makes you look as though you're selling insurance...
Minister: But this is what I do, when I'm trying to look sincere!
Producer: Yes, the trouble is that it makes you look like someone, who's trying to look sincere.

The One Doctor

gmisk wrote: »

"gay agenda".....Laughable if you werent being serious

Its lovely to be called trendy and cutting edge though......is it only if you are under a certain age?

In the 80s the gay agenda in the US was to push the AIDS problem under the table to prevent a public backlash against the gay community. If they had that much power then...

Odhinn

ollkiller wrote: »

I'm straight and don't find it uncomfortable. I used to when i was younger but i retrained myself and grew out of it. It's pretty easy to do. Do you think gay people find watching straight people kissing uncomfortable. If you want something uncomfortable to watch then try watching an episode of Fair City.

Have you something against cardboard acting amidst cardboard scenery?

sabat

gmisk wrote: »

"gay agenda".....Laughable if you werent being serious

I made a point about Katherine Zappone earlier in the thread but didn't come back when it sank into obviously homophobic people giving out about men kissing etc. This is an official press release from The National History Museum:

With this referendum, Ireland became the first state to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote. Katherine and Ann Louise were married again in Dublin two months after the new Marriage Act came into effect on the 16th November 2015.

https://www.museum.ie/Corporate-Media/News/January-2019/Donation-of-the-wedding-dresses-of-Minister-Kather

They are quite clearly implying that this was a wedding (a direct lie in itself) that was only possible because of that referendum. Every single Irish media outlet has repeated this claim almost verbatim. Whatever occurred at Dublin Castle (I'm guessing some kind of dykey renewal of vows featuring the word goddess) was not a wedding and hence these are not "wedding dresses" yet nobody is even questioning why a government minister is able to hijack the state's infrastructure for self-aggrandising propaganda. It seems you just have to slap a rainbow flag on something and bludgeon it into the prevailing narrative (Oh Ireland was so awful with the priests and now it's so great with the gays) and it becomes immune to criticism.

sabat

sabat wrote: »

I made a point about Katherine Zappone earlier in the thread but didn't come back when it sank into obviously homophobic people giving out about men kissing etc. This is an official press release from The National History Museum:



https://www.museum.ie/Corporate-Media/News/January-2019/Donation-of-the-wedding-dresses-of-Minister-Kather

They are quite clearly implying that this was a wedding (a direct lie in itself) that was only possible because of that referendum.

They are quite clearly implying that this was a wedding (a direct lie in itself) that was only possible because of that referendum. Every single Irish media outlet has repeated this claim almost verbatim. Whatever occurred at Dublin Castle (I'm guessing some kind of dykey renewal of vows featuring the word goddess) was not a wedding and hence these are not "wedding dresses" yet nobody is even questioning why a government minister is able to hijack the state's infrastructure for self-aggrandising propaganda. It seems you just have to slap a rainbow flag on something and bludgeon it into the prevailing narrative (Oh Ireland was so awful with the priests and now it's so great with the gays) and it becomes immune to criticism.

So your saying that either gay people could get married legally in Ireland before the referendum, or that their Canadian and Irish marriage (after the referendum making it legal) wasn't really a wedding?

Anyone can get married in city hall by the way as they did as far as I know

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/news/after-13-years-the-brides-finally-get-to-tie-knot-on-irish-soil-34389675.html

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-recreation-culture-cityhall/weddings

So your claim that they hijacked the castle for propaganda purposes is as stupid as the rest of your post.

sabat

DubInMeath wrote: »

So your saying that either gay people could get married legally in Ireland before the referendum, or that their Canadian and Irish marriage (after the referendum making it legal) wasn't really a wedding?

I'm saying they got married in Canada. You can't get married twice, even to the same person in a different country. There was no Dublin wedding in the sense that is being represented in the museum or in the media or by Zappone herself. If you don't believe me you can check the public register in Werburgh St. Whatever ceremony did occur had zero dependence on the referendum. Maybe they enquired whether it was possible but were advised that it was tantamount to bigamy...

The whole thing is total bull**** but if you Google search "zappone wedding dresses" every single media outlet repeats the lie unquestioningly. Ironically, Zappone is guilty of one of the claims made by the no side in the referendum-that it would turn marriage into an attention seeking stunt.

Annasopra

The One Doctor wrote: »

In the 80s the gay agenda in the US was to push the AIDS problem under the table to prevent a public backlash against the gay community. If they had that much power then...

wrong forum

sabat

sabat wrote: »

I'm saying they got married in Canada. You can't get married twice, even to the same person in a different country. There was no Dublin wedding in the sense that is being represented in the museum or in the media or by Zappone herself. If you don't believe me you can check the public register in Werburgh St. Whatever ceremony did occur had zero dependence on the referendum. Maybe they enquired whether it was possible but were advised that it was tantamount to bigamy...

The whole thing is total bull**** but if you Google search "zappone wedding dresses" every single media outlet repeats the lie unquestioningly. Ironically, Zappone is guilty of one of the claims made by the no side in the referendum-that it would turn marriage into an attention seeking stunt.

I've know people who got married in Rome and then again back in Ireland with the extended family present.

Also as stated in my reply to your original post they didn't get married in Dublin castle, they got married in Dublin City Hall, from what I know, and anyone else can get married there.

sabat

DubInMeath wrote: »

I've know people who got married in Rome and then again back in Ireland.

One church, one civil I presume. No legal marriage between Katherine Zappone and Anne Gilligan took place in this state. There is none on the register. They could have done whatever they did in Dublin Castle 50 years ago without legal impediment. These are the facts.

Lux23

tayto lover wrote: »

Don’t know their names and wouldn’t be asking as it would give them the attention they don’t deserve.

But what do they do that annoys you so much?

dont bother

Lux23 wrote: »

But what do they do that annoys you so much?

really? it's clearly because the poster is a mongo fool.

dont bother

sabat wrote: »

One church, one civil I presume. No legal marriage between Katherine Zappone and Anne Gilligan took place in this state. There is none on the register. They could have done whatever they did in Dublin Castle 50 years ago without legal impediment. These are the facts.

why so obsessed?

you are a homophobe.
there's proof in your posts.

"dykey"???

mongo twat.

dont bother

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think that's the root of the problem though, it doesn't make them appear modern and inclusive, it makes them look like they want to appear modern and inclusive. That's where the term 'virtue signalling' comes from and it does piss people off, it comes across as cringe at best and hypocritical at worst.

EDIT: I know I'm always quoting this show on this forum, but another relevant Yes Minister quote:

Producer: Minister, would you mind not leaning forward towards the camera like that? It makes you look as though you're selling insurance...
Minister: But this is what I do, when I'm trying to look sincere!
Producer: Yes, the trouble is that it makes you look like someone, who's trying to look sincere.

people always go on about virtue signalling as if it's actually a bad thing.

like, do you not think that yes, while it's someone who is looking to be seen as an ally to the gay community, or whatever cause... but on the other hand, they are actively trying to NOT be an ar5ehole, and therefore only a truly negative person would point it out as "virtue signalling"?

it doesnt work for a cause like this. people want to be nice to each other, and some people are backwards and bitter.

in fact, there's no such thing as virtue signalling. it's absolute nonsense made up by fools who want to give out about someone being nice or supportive to a cause.

Tokyo

Mod: dont bother - please don't post in this thread again.

sabat

dont bother wrote: »

why so obsessed?

you are a homophobe.
there's proof in your posts.

"dykey"???

mongo twat.

You didn't say that my post was untrue though. Fwiw I voted yes in the referendum but I didn't anticipate that what I saw as a question of basic fair play would be co-opted to diminish other freedoms-in this case a free press and government accountability. If Ray Burke or Pee Flynn had a renewal of vows ceremony with their wife, pretended it was an actual wedding, then pushed the national museum to put the outfits on display with the lie attached do you think people wouldn't have a problem with it?
Zappone is clearly attempting to develop a cult of personality around herself.

Edit: saw you got carded. It wasn't me who reported you. People can call me whatever they want...

Hotblack Desiato

Utterly ridiculous thing to be complaining about.

They couldn't get married again here because the law here now recognised their foreign marriage. It didn't before.

They wanted a little ceremony to mark the fact that their existing marriage was now legally recognised here. They had one. It had no legal effect. So what.

As has been pointed out, lots of heterosexual people have a civil marriage here / reception and possibly church abroad, or vice versa. Where's your ire for them?

jochenstacker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous thing to be complaining about.

They couldn't get married again here because the law here now recognised their foreign marriage. It didn't before.

They wanted a little ceremony to mark the fact that their existing marriage was now legally recognised here. They had one. It had no legal effect. So what.

As has been pointed out, lots of heterosexual people have a civil marriage here / reception and possibly church abroad, or vice versa. Where's your ire for them?

Absolutely. Only someone with a serious mental problem would try to twist this into something negative.
Two people got married, if you don't like it, fcuk off.

jochenstacker

jochenstacker wrote: »

Absolutely. Only someone with a serious mental problem would try to twist this into something negative.
Two people got married, if you don't like it, fcuk off.

I suppose some people see Katherine Zappone and her late wife as the public face of the marriage referendum, David Norris also to an extent.
When your blatantly against something and the majority aren't, some people just get more bitter.

You have the same sort of thing from the anti choice posters (often the same ones in threads like this) even after the referendum result on the 8th they still deny the fact that Savita Halappanavar died due to the 8th being in place and again get a bit bitter about that too.

You could say religion comes in their argument.
It's in the bible blah blah, and children would be safer in mother and baby homes than with single mothers (despite clear evidence of this being the opposite).

But I think their so called religious views are a handy excuse for them. The ones who claim not to be religious are at least a bit more honest in what they spout and they don't appear to be happy people either going by what they post on the site in other threads.

sabat

jochenstacker wrote: »

Two people got married, if you don't like it, fcuk off.

I'll put this point by point for the slow people:

1. They were already married.
2. Some type of ceremony took place in Dublin which was not a wedding in any common understanding of the word and had no legal or official status.
3. It is reported everywhere that this was a "wedding" without any clarification and that it was only possible because of the marriage referendum.
4. There is an exhibition about the referendum in the National History Museum featuring dresses from this "wedding" being treated as historic artifacts when they actually have as much relevance to that event as my old underpants.
5. Katherine Zappone is a serving government minister who it seems pushed this on the museum and got a ton of free positive PR as a result.
I can't really say anymore on this; people can make up their own minds.

Raconteuse

The One Doctor wrote: »

In the 80s the gay agenda in the US was to push the AIDS problem under the table to prevent a public backlash against the gay community. If they had that much power then...

Wha? The AIDS virus was considered "the gay disease". Gay community activists had to fight for healthcare and a recognition of this monumental public health crisis while people were dropping dead like flies. Far from hiding that it was hugely prevalent among gay men, they were standing up and begging for help and humanity towards their community.

It wasn't until heterosexual people were being diagnosed that solid intervention came into effect.

cj maxx

To answer the OP I'm dealing with the enforced homosexuality down here just fine. And if they don't like it they can stick it up my arse

Cyclepath

cjmc wrote: »

To answer the OP I'm dealing with the enforced homosexuality down here just fine. And if they don't like it they can stick it up my arse

Yeah me too. Dealing with it like a man. In fact, I just had my mandatory anal penetration a few days ago.

I mean like, the doctor dressed it up as a "routine exam for men of your age to determine the health of the prostate" etc, etc, but he's not fooling me. I know what's happening in this country...

Cyclepath

Cyclepath wrote: »

Yeah me too. Dealing with it like a man. In fact, I just had my mandatory anal penetration a few days ago.

I mean like, the doctor dressed it up as a "routine exam for men of your age to determine the health of the prostate" etc, etc, but he's not fooling me. I know what's happening in this country...

Well what do you expect when you visit an armless proctologist

Eric Cartman

Cyclepath wrote: »

Yeah me too. Dealing with it like a man. In fact, I just had my mandatory anal penetration a few days ago.

I mean like, the doctor dressed it up as a "routine exam for men of your age to determine the health of the prostate" etc, etc, but he's not fooling me. I know what's happening in this country...

The budget isnt till october