David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:27PM

zuroph wrote: »

You said, How can that have nothing to do with him being gay??? You went out of your way to say it.

Probably the only reason we invited the queen, so that two sexes didnt have to stand side by side. imagine the international shame.

Im sorry at this stage if you dont understand, I cant explain it further. It was to do with a first man and first lady. It doesnt matter if that arises from the fact one president is gay and has a partner, or the president is a female meeting a male president. Stop trying to play the homophobic card.

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:28PM

My name is URL wrote: »

I was only joking dude

So was I dude. Jokes dont go down too well in here seemingly though.

AudreyHepburn · 01-06-2011 08:28PM

sesna wrote: »

Nothing to do with him being gay. Merely an observation of the break from tradition of the first lady being assigned to engaging with a first man (if Norris even has a partner). Of course this has being going on for years anyway since the advent of female presidents meeting male presidents.

`

What difference would it make whether it was a First Man or First Lady?

tayto lover wrote: »

Thats a very good post and a good reason to vote for him, but do you not think he overdoes the gay bit ? Just a wee bit even ? Another thing, why did he even get into the "classic paedophilia" thing in the first place ? Did he not think that the ordinary people would pick up on it as they dislike that kind of thing after the clerical sex scandals ?

I wouldn't have said he overdoes it nor does he hide it. But why shouldn't homosexuals 'flaunt' it. As I said before they have had to hide it and suffer for it long enough.

Again that comment is being twisted into something it's not.

Nodin · 01-06-2011 08:30PM

sesna wrote: »

So was I dude. Jokes dont go down too well in here seemingly though.

Funny ones do.

Terry · 01-06-2011 08:30PM

BlueSmoker wrote: »

It dose happen, but belief me it's still illegal, regardless of gender/sexuality. I'm sorry to say this but we girls need to express ourselves as much as you guys do, so you actually crashing a girls party that is under aged, makes you a pedophile, sorry them our the rules. In the same way If crashed a teen aged guy's party who was underaged

:eek:

Where the **** did I say that I crashed a teenager's party?
I'm 35. In order to reach this age, I had to, just like everyone else, be a teenager. Honestly. It's true. I wasn't born at the age of 35.

You also need to take into account that I have had women tell me about their sexual history and some of them experimented with other women when they were teenagers.

I think you're being a bit too liberal with the paedophilia accusations there.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

That racism aginst the Saudi

It ain 't just the saudis it all the others haters as well we got sell beef and stuff to them

It's realpolitik* we are a small trading state we must play the game not rock the boat

Address my point Could Norris carry out a successful trade mission to a country which has dealth penalty for gays as per Mary.**

world gay laws
http://www.mariage3d.com/BLOGSLESIMAGES/World_homosexuality_laws-FULL.png
http://loopylettuce.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wolrdgaylawsblack.png

* Huh?

**Yes. The Saudis like big slabs of beef. They seem to dislike looking at women (the burkha). This all points to them being homosexual as far as I'm concerned.

BlueSmoker wrote: »

That was my point exactly, hit the nail on the head, there boy In answer to your question, of course he can, who wants to create
war on Ireland?????

A gay President will not cause anyone to declare war on Ireland.
Honestly.
The inquisition is over. Long over.

prinz wrote: »

You don't think being a "Norris supporter" has coloured your opinion of the Magill article? Do you have proof that the attributed quotes are but malicious ramblings?

Do you have proof that they are true?
I do.

I interviewed Norris a few weeks ago and he said that he is the re-incarnation of Mohammed.
I'd let you listen to the interview, but I can't find the tapes. It's 100% true though.

prinz wrote: »

..he gave a few more interviews 'clarifying'. It was always bound to crop up again. it would do him no harm, rather than discussing HLB and the 2002 interview, if he made clear again that what happened in ancient Greece is best left to ancient Greece as far as man/boy love went, and what exactly is his position on the age of consent laws as they are right now in this State.

In the interview, he told me that he is against older men having sex with underage boys.
Again, I can't find the tapes, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm not - but I don't think LGBT people are voting for him JUST because he is gay. It's more that he has been a champion of gay rights. As a gay man he fought a battle through the Irish and European court system for almost 20 years to have gay male sex decriminalised. He has consistently advocated for partnership rights. I believe he also co founded ILGA Of course as a politician his focus has been much broader than gay rights as well; he has worked a huge amount in the seanad on foreign affairs, human rights nationally and internationally. I know lots of LGBT people and they would not vote for a gay candidate - they would vote for Norris based on his record as an activist and politician. There are lots of LGBT people who are not voting him simply because they prefer other candidates.

You should put up a poll in the LGBT forum and see how people vote.

RachaelVO wrote: »

She comes out very bad in this whole thing. To be fair to her, she did a huge amount for womens equality, but with this, she has created a bad legacy for herself. By rights history should reflect that she was a great womens advocate, and that she was part of the machine that changed Irish law. But now she won't be, she'll be remembered as someone who can't find interview tapes, and someone who played to the agenda of Enoch Burke (I don't think they're related).

Speaking of Enoch Burke, I added him as a friend on Facebook a few months back.
Just waiting for it all to kick off...

tayto lover wrote: »

Innocent man indeed ???

What's he guilty of?
Does he have a criminal record?

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:31PM

Nodin wrote: »

Funny ones do.

Oh you found David Norris is a crocodile hilarious? I was worried it might be somehow construed as being homophobic.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 08:33PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Thats a very good post and a good reason to vote for him, but do you not think he overdoes the gay bit ? Just a wee bit even...

Firstly I think that anyone that thinks/see he might be overdoing a possible gay bit and picks on it (NOT having a go at you), well honestly they might only be seeing things that they want to see in order to confirm reason why NOT to vote for him. It might be only bringing out any poor reasons for dis-likes too and trying to justify them.
He is what he is and if his actions start becoming he dancing around like a hyper-active ballerina as he's walking the streets of the world - I'm sure the boys and girls in white suits will not be too far long behind him, coming to pick him up.

Till then, I think we're all safe. :pac:

tayto lover wrote: »

...Another thing, why did he even get into the "classic paedophilia" thing in the first place ? Did he not think that the ordinary people would pick up on it as they dislike that kind of thing after the clerical sex scandals ?

He (as far as I know) ended up talking for whatever reason, to a journalist. A journalist is a person who is actively seeking to find a story for their print media/employers.
Did he really get into it or was he dragged into it by clever prodding and questioning of a shrew person? A very experienced shrewd person!
I wonder...

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:38PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

`

What difference would it make whether it was a First Man or First Lady?

I wouldn't have said he overdoes it nor does he hide it. But why shouldn't homosexuals 'flaunt' it. As I said before they have had to hide it and suffer for it long enough.

Again that comment is being twisted into something it's not.

Who is twisting comments ? Am i being homophobic if i say i do not like being in the company of gays who are acting camp ? Instead of "why should they hide it" i would ask why should they flaunt it? Most of them don't. Also i am glad that homosexuality is legal and attended a gay wedding in March where there was nobody flaunting it. Again maybe its just me.

sesna · 01-06-2011 08:41PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Who is twisting comments ? Am i being homophobic if i say i do not like being in the company of gays who are acting camp ? Instead of "why should they hide it" i would ask why should they flaunt it? Most of them don't. Also i am glad that homosexuality is legal and attended a gay wedding in March where there was nobody flaunting it. Again maybe its just me.

Homophobia, thrown around loosely like anti semitism to counter an argument and suit ones agenda.

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:42PM

Biggins wrote: »

Firstly I think that anyone that thinks/see he might be overdoing a possible gay bit and picks on it (NOT having a go at you), well honestly they might only be seeing things that they want to see in order to confirm reason why NOT to vote for him. It might be only bringing out any poor reasons for dis-likes too and trying to justify them.
He is what he is and if his actions start becoming he dancing around like a hyper-active ballerina as he's walking the streets of the world - I'm sure the boys and girls in white suits will not be too far long behind him, coming to pick him up.

Till then, I think we're all safe. :pac:

He (as far as I know) ended up talking for whatever reason, to a journalist. A journalist is a person who is actively seeking to find a story for their print media/employers.
Did he really get into it or was he dragged into it by clever prodding and questioning of a shrew person? A very experienced shrewd person!
I wonder...

Fair enough but do you not find him a bit naive for an educated man for doing so and if so is he good presidential material as a result of having done so ? There may be other pitfalls ahead waiting for him.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:45PM

sesna wrote: »

Im sorry at this stage if you dont understand, I cant explain it further. It was to do with a first man and first lady. It doesnt matter if that arises from the fact one president is gay and has a partner, or the president is a female meeting a male president. Stop trying to play the homophobic card.

I'm not trying to play a homophobic card, im just genuinely interested in why a "supposedly gay" male and a female beside each other would matter in the slightest? have you ever stood beside a female???

Biggins · 01-06-2011 08:47PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Who is twisting comments ? Am i being homophobic if i say i do not like being in the company of gays who are acting camp ? Instead of "why should they hide it" i would ask why should they flaunt it? Most of them don't. Also i am glad that homosexuality is legal and attended a gay wedding in March where there was nobody flaunting it. Again maybe its just me.

I think I understand what your trying to say.
(Please give out to me if I am wrong)

Your saying you at times find some personality traits and their outward expression of it hard to mix with - and thats fair enough.
No one gets on with everyone and everyone has preferences as to what sort of personality company (NOT sexuality company) they want to keep at times.

If something about a personality of a person in a room don't match with one's own personality, its ok not to get on well with them and not become best friends - I just hope ye all will at the same time, acknowledge at least their other traits/skills/experience/etc and judge them further for a job on those aspects too rather than just the intimate personal clash of personalities one.

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:50PM

zuroph wrote: »

I'm not trying to play a homophobic card, im just genuinely interested in why a "supposedly gay" male and a female beside each other would matter in the slightest? have you ever stood beside a female???

Well i feel uncomfortable standing around gays who are camp. My nephew is gay and i told him that very thing. He said he felt uncomfortable around the camp boys too. I am noted for coming to the point fairly quickly and not beating around the bush and believe it or not people like and respect that i'm straight-forward. BUT i do not consider myself homophobic.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 08:52PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Fair enough but do you not find him a bit naive for an educated man for doing so and if so is he good presidential material as a result of having done so ? There may be other pitfalls ahead waiting for him.

Well to be honest, this is the first big mistake that supposedly he has made (that I know of).
Considering his persuasion and the chance that there might be those that would be out there more so, to want to use it against him - I'm surprised this is his only possible error that might have occurred and exposed.

He is not the first to be caught out by a journalist and shouldn't he knocked off long-term for it.

AudreyHepburn · 01-06-2011 08:53PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Who is twisting comments ? Am i being homophobic if i say i do not like being in the company of gays who are acting camp ?

Yes you are and you know it.

Instead of "why should they hide it" i would ask why should they flaunt it? Most of them don't. Also i am glad that homosexuality is legal and attended a gay wedding in March where there was nobody flaunting it. Again maybe its just me.

It is just you. Why should they hide it? What harm does it do bar making a close minded few uncomfortable? Straight people don't hide that they are straight do they?

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:53PM

Biggins wrote: »

I think I understand what your trying to say.
(Please give out to me if I am wrong)

Your saying you at times find some personality traits and their outward expression of it hard to mix with - and thats fair enough.
No one get on with everyone and everyone has preferences as to what sort of personality company (NOT sexuality company) they want to keep at times.

If something about a personality of a person in a room don't match with one own personality, its ok not to get on well with them and not become best friends - I just hope ye all will at the same time, acknowledge at least their other traits/skills/experience/etc and judge them further for a job on those aspects too rather than just the intimate personal clash of personalities one.

Yes something like that. There are many straight people i dislike too and feel uncomfortable with. I might seem over-the-top at times but i always say how i feel instead of hiding it, i find its better all round.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 08:54PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Well i feel uncomfortable standing around gays who are camp. My nephew is gay and i told him that very thing. He said he felt uncomfortable around the camp boys too. I am noted for coming to the point fairly quickly and not beating around the bush and believe it or not people like and respect that i'm straight-forward. BUT i do not consider myself homophobic.

fine, but who said Norris would A) have a first man, and

that that person would be camp?

FWIW I dislike OTT camp folk too, however I dont feel uncomfortable. I know plenty of camp straight people. I dislike a lot of straight people eith other personality "quirks" too, and tolerate them in the exact same way.

Having only met Norris once, he didnt strike me as camp.

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 08:56PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes you are and you know it.

It is just you. Why should they hide it? What harm does it do bar making a close minded few uncomfortable? Straight people don't hide that they are straight do they?

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that then. There are many straight people who make me feel uncomfortable too by the way.

tayto lover · 01-06-2011 09:00PM

zuroph wrote: »

fine, but who said Norris would A) have a first man, and that that person would be camp?

FWIW I dislike OTT camp folk too, however I dont feel uncomfortable. I know plenty of camp straight people. I dislike a lot of straight people eith other personality "quirks" too, and tolerate them in the exact same way.

Having only met Norris once, he didnt strike me as camp.

O.K. thats fair enough. Maybe i met him on the wrong day.

Terry · 01-06-2011 09:00PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I am noted for coming to the point fairly quickly and not beating around the bush

Indeed. Most gay men do not beat around the bush.

Oh, is that out of context?

AudreyHepburn · 01-06-2011 09:05PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that then. There are many straight people who make me feel uncomfortable too by the way.

Fair enough.

flash1080 · 01-06-2011 09:05PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes you are and you know it.

It is just you. Why should they hide it? What harm does it do bar making a close minded few uncomfortable? Straight people don't hide that they are straight do they?

There's lots of gay guys who don't like being in the company of gay guys who act camp. Homophobic homosexuals :pac:

sesna · 01-06-2011 09:06PM

Back to Norris, I do find it strange that he did not take steps to clear his name at the time when his approval of consensual anal sex between older adult men with sexually mature adolescent teenagers was published. It is disturbing, and I dont think his interview with a Sindo hack a week later is how someone goes about clearing their name.

I think if Norris thought he had a leg to stand on at the time, he would have hit the courts.

zuroph · 01-06-2011 09:12PM

sesna wrote: »

Back to Norris, I do find it strange that he did not take steps to clear his name at the time when his approval of consensual anal sex between older adult men with sexually mature adolescent teenagers was published. It is disturbing, and I dont think his interview with a Sindo hack a week later is how someone goes about clearing their name.

I think if Norris thought he had a leg to stand on at the time, he would have hit the courts.

not everyone is litigious. A court case would have drawn more focus on the article. Norris used his right to reply with the article, and from what I read, his retort was generally well recieved and the issue died down.

Biggins · 01-06-2011 09:12PM

sesna wrote: »

Back to Norris, I do find it strange that he did not take steps to clear his name at the time when his approval of consensual anal sex between older adult men with sexually mature adolescent teenagers was published. It is disturbing, and I dont think his interview with a Sindo hack a week later is how someone goes about clearing their name.

I think if Norris thought he had a leg to stand on at the time, he would have hit the courts.

To be fair he might have took the reasonable tactic to keep his mouth shut further and wade out any possible bad press.
(pity Ryan Giggs didn't do that instead, keep his head down for a time - and look where it got him!)
As it was, at the time there was nothing more made of it at national lever or at even any local level as far as I remember.

At the time of the interview (if memory serves me right), the culture of the day was not to run to the courts every time someone wrote a piece in the paper that they might not agree with.
My, how things in that area alone this last few years!

sesna · 01-06-2011 09:15PM

zuroph wrote: »

not everyone is litigious. A court case would have drawn more focus on the article. Norris used his right to reply with the article, and from what I read, his retort was generally well recieved and the issue died down.

Do you think it will die down this time, and if not what is different about this time?

There should not have been no problem have been with drawing focus on the article if his retort was valid.

goat2 · 01-06-2011 09:16PM

i cannot understand why people are making such a big issue of whether or not he is gay, i have gay friends, i dont see them as different to other friends, if one of my children were to tell me that they are gay, it would make no difference to me, still love them the same. and i should that being gay would not prevent them from entering their chosen career

zuroph · 01-06-2011 09:19PM

sesna wrote: »

Do you think it will die down this time, and if not what is different about this time?

There should not have been no problem have been with drawing focus on the article if his retort was valid.

It will take longer, or be less likely to die down this time, and that is because there is more people who gain something from keeping it in focus. in 2002, those who complained were those who genuinely found distress from the article, in 2011, many many extra people have joined the group, purely because his campaign would suffer from the insinuations.

Terry · 01-06-2011 09:20PM

sesna wrote: »

Back to Norris, I do find it strange that he did not take steps to clear his name at the time when his approval of consensual anal sex between older adult men with sexually mature adolescent teenagers was published. It is disturbing, and I dont think his interview with a Sindo hack a week later is how someone goes about clearing their name.

I think if Norris thought he had a leg to stand on at the time, he would have hit the courts.

You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Paddy De Plasterer · 01-06-2011 09:26PM

I wouild not vote for him, not because of his sexuality, but i find him a pompous arrogant windbag.

David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

Comments