Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DUSTIN LANCE BLACK gave an incredibly moving speech to UCD’s Law Society about gay rights this week.
The activist and Oscar-winning screenwriter spoke about growing up as a member of the Mormon Church in Texas, when being gay was still illegal in the US.
Black told students the Mormon Church “makes the Catholic church seem really open-minded”, noting he was taught from a young age that being gay was akin to being a murderer.
Growing up in that church I heard from a very, very early age that homosexuality was sin next to the crime of murder. So from the age of 3, 4, 5, 6, – when I was just a little kid, three foot tall – I knew that I was right down there with all the sinners and the murderers and the rapists. It was very scary.
During the moving speech, Black spoke of the fear he felt about coming out to his family.
“I knew that I was a sinner. I knew that I was a criminal,” he said.
Black said he and his mother “talked endlessly” about everything.
One night when he was home from college for Christmas, he said his mother started to complain about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell rule in the US military being “too inclusive”.
Black said he prayed, in vain, for him not to cry in front of her because she would then know the truth about his sexuality.
Before I knew it that first tear had hit my cheek and that room went silent and I looked up into her eyes – and this is a good Southern Mormon mom, I mean she knew. She knew.I didn’t have to say anything. But, loud and clear, what I heard in that silence was that it wasn’t OK. That she was afraid for her son. What had she done wrong to break her precious boy and how could she fix this horrible problem? That’s what that silence said.
Black went on to tell the audience of the surprising way his mother reacted when she met his college friends, many of whom were gay.
Black, who is in a relationship with British Olympic diver Tom Daley, said the upcoming vote on marriage equality in Ireland “scares” him as “this isn’t a right that should be put up for a vote”.
“This is a fundamental right that is bigger than any one belief system, bigger than any one religion. It is a fundamental right of being a human being able to marry the person that you love.”
He said Ireland is “on the cusp of change” and encouraged people to make sure they get out and vote on 22 May.
“Go out and tell your stories,” he said.
Black has been awarded honorary life membership of UCD Law Society.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Ah you just can’t beat a bit of religious brain washing to bugger up your life.
You’re face is an abomination.
(what? too childish?)
*your
John your on the money.
That’s what I do not understand why would anyone who claims to be man or women of God ‘Intentional’ make 10% of the children in Ireland feel they are Not Equal to the other 90% children in Ireland.
I saw this speech the other day. It moved me to tears. I know what it’s like to have people think the most awful things and say horrendous things about you because you’re gay.
I get called names, accussed of being a paedophile, part of the new world order, selfish…all sorts, when all I want is equality under the law. Some of the stuff I see on here, the hatred and the lies has an affect on me. I have at times felt the need to walk away as I’ve felt it affecting my mental health.
May 23rd is going to be one of those significant days in my life where I am told by this country that I am either accepted and equal or considered less than, inferior. I dread that day. It scares me half to death. I will cry that day, I just hope it’s tears of joy, not of sadness.
Ailbhe, I’ll be out voting for your tears of joy.
Don’t take it too hard if it goes they other way! I fear that we may be half a generation too close to religious fundamentalism for it to pass. Hoping to be surprised by Ireland!
Thanks Ivan. I hope you’re wrong!
Of course it will pass. Catholic church’s grip on power is gone.
I’d never mind anything you read here. The journal is full of bigots from the far right and looney left.
Better not reading comments at all really
I have spoken to some people I would normally consider sane who are voting no, thing is they can not logically explain why.
What an incredible young man ! Such a beautiful human being.
If I were his mother I would be so proud.
@ Ailbhe O Nolan, Know that on May 23rd, one of the joyous tears you will be receiving will be from me to you.
Pay no attention to the nasties on here, their words are a reflection of what’s inside them.
They do not define you.
Stand up and shine girl, that’s what you came here to do :)
I do hope I’m wrong, fingers crossed!
Aah, the good old victim narrative. Tears ‘n all.
Ill be voting yes, but not because of the sop stories, but because i believe in real equality. Plenty heterosexuals experience things that are not good for their mental health, not only gay people. The “victimhood” is not exclusively gay, so please stop.
Yes El Zanz….you’re right. Honesty and humanity is terrible. I’ll refrain from now on.
Yippee, thank you. Your words are lovely and put a smile on my face.
Hang in their my friend. In truth I don’t know what will happen in May but I’m a bit old (and a prod) and recall what happened with divorce. Time passes and as it does things heal. Our day will come.
Great guy and great story. It is tragic that the religious background he came from was so narrow-minded and damaging. That should never be the case. Kudos for coming through and for being able to be the person he is.
But the discussion should be also be more inclusive, and question the role of marriage on society. And I don’t mean from a religious perspective, but from the perspective of how society treats marriage as a social institution as opposed to a legally-defined one. If the whole thing were such a simplistic notion of letting everyone marry whomever they chose, there would be no issue whatsoever. But it does run a bit deeper, and a mature society should be able to discuss in a meaningful fashion, and not shout down anyone who asks the question.
So, here’s to a meaningful, open, inclusive, mature, and reasoned debate. Let’s leave the narrow-minded bigotry for those who cannot entertain an opposing thought, and cannot think for themselves.
Mitt Romney father in law was baptised 10 years after he died by the Mormons
Cry me a river ffs
I thought everyone is baptised by the Mormons when they die? It does not worry me, because every weekend I look through the obituaries and baptise everyone there in the name of my church, the electrolyte spirits, where everyone who died lives on in the resistors on servers in data centres. I’m working my way through the Utah phone book next…
No they only baptise special people, I think they did it to Hitler.
They baptise all the ancestors of any member of their church, so that their members’ families will be saved too. This is why they maintain the best genealogical records in the world, and are a great source for family history.
Well said
Well when you think about all christianity is very silly. All religions are.
But Mormons are a whole different type of crazy. Their founder claimed to have read instructions from the heavens on metal tiles. Not only this he had to be alone. Look at them through a hat and no one else was allow look.
People actually bought that crap??
Well I soppose people believe it scientology Christian science and all that.
One based on conman who wanted to screw silly people out of wealth for power and control. Ron Hubbard was him name.
The other was based on a conman who wanted to screw silly people out of wealth for power and control.
Gosh yes, isn’t the Book of Mormon silly. Whereas putting demons into a herd of pigs, cursing trees because they don’t bear the kind of fruit you want when you want it, making life-changing decisions based on something a burning bush told you, a deity who is his own son, all far more sensible. ALL beliefs in supernatural stories from the past are foolish by their very nature, picking one out as being extra risible is even sillier.
Agnosticism is the only logical religious view imo. Straight up Atheism is just as dogmatic and ignorant as Creationism
Spot on Eric, until there is undeniable evidence that there is no God (unlikely, as proving absence on a cosmic scale is near impossible) then the possibility of existence should be entertained, although weighted by potential.
Re the founder of Mormonism, he also spent time in prison in both New York and Illinois for fraud after having founded the church. Amazing that he was caught really, when you consider how ingenious his ruses were, as Charles has described above!
How is atheism dogmatic? It is simply the absence of belief in a god. Show me evidence of a god and I’ll happily believe.
Atheism states that there is no god. Agnosticism states that while there could be a god, in the absence of evidence, scepticism should be employed. To state with certainty that no god exists requires evidence to support your assertion, and evidence of absence is not easily obtained, so similar to dogmatic creationists, atheists make statements with certainty while being unable to support their statements with proof.
The fact you said “show me evidence and I’ll believe” would actually classify you as more agnostic than atheist anyway, but these discussions usually fall down on semantics and different people’s definitions of words.
Egg head, having to prove that a God doesn’t exist equates to having to prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Or Spideman, Batman, etc. Just because we don’t know all the answers doesn’t mean that there’s a magical deity-centric answer.
If you have a crazy, unproven belief, the onus isn’t on the rest of us to prove that you’re a spoofer. The onus is on you.
Yeah apparently only he could see these messages. I’d a person said this today the would be in the care of a mental institution.
But u disagree about not proving gods existence. On a cosmic scale it is unlikely that he existed at all. We know age of universe we know was not made in 7 days
We also know how it was created by a big bang which also gave us our laws of physics and the energy and matter to create everything. Energy and matter same thing. But what it does prove also is chaos theory. In its 14 billion yrs the universe has been random. No god controlling events just random. We created a god because fear of death and unknown. As science grew so did god because it’s impossible for our limited minds to comprehend the massive scale of the universe. This leads to uncertainty and as mammals we need structure in society so create a religion it gives structure leadership and takes fear of death.
God is as real as santa clause. As Stephen Fry said. Cancer in childer? Sadistic if there was a god. Which there is not.
All things being equal. The simplist explication is the right one. I.E out word expansion of energy time and space
Egg your incorrect. Atheism does not state that there is no god. Are you an agnostic about the tooth fairy santa claus or the easter bunny. You cant prove they dont exist but its unlikely they do. Atheism is the same. We dont believe in any super natural entity because its highly unlikely. The only thing we can say is there is definitely no abrahamic god. He does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming. Is there any god? Highly unlikely but as a full blown atheist I dont no. The truth is agnosticism is just atheist light.
I don’t believe in god so I’m not arguing existence, I’m simply saying that to state anything with certainty requires evidence. Religious folk state existence of god with certainty, so there is an onus of proof; atheists state non-existence of god with certainty, and this also requires proof. Agnosticism simply states it’s very unlikely there is a god, but there potentially could be. You should never be 100% certain of anything if you do not have irrefutable evidence to support your position, so agnosticism (which is what you are even if you are 99.9% sure there is no god) is the logical path.
Mj, and the discussion goes exactly where I said it would! You say that it’s “highly unlikely” that there is a god, which makes you an agnostic in my book (you are open to the possibility were evidence to be presented, but are highly sceptical in the absence of that evidence), but a full blown atheist in your book. As always it really just boils down to semantics.
Fin – Ye cuz saying that a deity created the universe is so much crazier than saying the universe and all of it’s infinite complexity simply appeared out of nothing. Saying that proving God is akin to proving the Tooth Fairy is ridiculous. Your knowledge of the universe is miniscule, therefore you can’t just state outright that you have a definitive answer for the greatest question ever asked. The onus isn’t on us. We don’t have a belief. We don’t have enough information to give an outright yes/no answer. Both answers are equally valid. You believe something with certainty, therefore the onus is on you to prove it.
Charls – Forget about 7 days and all that religious nonsense. I amnot arguing in favor of religious beliefs. I am talking about prior Big Bang. The fundamental law of cause and effect. Effects cannot happen without causes. Yes, subatomic particles violate traditional laws of physics, but those laws had to have some from somewhere. We don’t know how those laws came from.
There is no God. There is zero evidence of a deity or invisible sky fairy other than the words and blind faith of humans to say he exists.
@fintastic. If it’s unprovable, it is precisely a belief which likewise can’t be categorically disproved. As mentioned we haven’t yet been able to prove that there isn’t a higher being who created the conditions for the existence of the universe. It’s probably easy to disprove the bible, but that’s a different matter. Tooth fairy and Santa Claus on the other hand can be disproved, so they are hypothetical.
It’s the vigorous attempts to prove that there isn’t a god, thats what makes atheism dogmatic. Atheism is the same thing as religion, except with a minus.
I’m an atheist. I make no attempts to disprove any deity. I just don’t buy into it and know I will cease to exist one day. Simples. Not dogmatic.
Ailbhe: dogmatism is laying down principles as being undeniably true without evidence of this undeniability. You say you “know you will cease to exist some day” – how do you know this to be case? (In fact it’s demonstrably incorrect, but proving that would just be more semantics). That you specify that you “know” this is dogmatism I’m afraid.
You clearly misunderstand this. Knowing within yourself and knowing because it has been undeniably proven are two seperate things. With me the latter is not the case, I could turn into a unicorn and fly away for all I know (that would be amazing) but in as much as I know and understand, I will cease to exist.
Fair enough, but the exact same principle can be applied to the religious who “know” they’re off to paradise when their bell tolls, and comparison of atheist with theist beliefs is how this discussion began.
My atheism isn’t dogmatic. It’s just a lack of belief. Medical science tells me my consciousness will end when I die. My perspective is supported by research. To believe what research tells us is not dogmatic.
I didn’t mention dogmatism, I just said your statement of knowing within yourself is the same principle the religious use. And to “know” you will cease to exist is a belief in of itself, not merely a lack of belief.
We understand so little of consciousness to begin with that we cannot categorically state that it ceases upon death. Remember, nothing can ever be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another, so technically speaking, all that makes us who we are does continue to exist in some manner after we have died, and all that makes us who we are has existed since the dawn of time.
I don’t actually disagree with you as such, I just agree with the original poster that to categorically deny the existence of god in the absence of evidence is as dogmatic as to categorically state the existence of god. Occam’s razor, which appears to be being used by many here, is only a tool to identify the most probable conclusion, never to identify certainty.
You did mention dogmatism. You said my stance of ‘knowing’ was dogmatic.
Yes, and we covered that and moved on. You are now just ignoring every other point to focus on a single word, like how you’re “knowing” (I’d consider it dogmatic, but if you dislike that word I won’t use it), is no different from a religious person’s “knowing”. Unless you have evidence, you don’t “know” something, you simply believe it to be the case. Why do you think what you believe, not know, is any more valid than what a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim believes?
My point was my atheism is not dogmatic, you claimed it is. I explained to you how it was not and you’re pretending you never said it was. Are you alright?
One last time, you stayed that you “know” you will cease to exist upon death, I said that this statement was dogmatic, not that your atheism was dogmatic. You said it was not dogmatic, because you were not laying down your assertion as an undeniable truth, but rather it was just something you knew within yourself. I countered that this is the exact same principle used by the religious to justify their belief. Then you began deflecting. Do you accept your beliefs in the absence of evidence are no more valid than anyone else’s, and your justification for being so confident in your own beliefs are remarkably similar to the justification used by the religious, or would you like to focus on dogmatism some more?
No as there is not an absence of evidence. The lack of evidence supporting the claims of religions is evidence enough. Just as the lack of evidence that Voldomort exists suggests it is nothing more than a story.
Are you crazy? there is a batman and spiderman, I seen them on telly.
So absence of evidence equals evidence of absence then? Sorry Ailbhe, if ad ignorantium fallacies are the best you can do then you have actually illustrated the accuracy of the original statement “straight up atheism is just as dogmatic and ignorant as creationism.”
If you say do eggy!
Egg Head – if thats the case then it raises tonnes of other questions, such as if our consciousness still exists in some form after we die, then what are we like? Are we still the same personalities in a somehow “disembodied format” or do we become emotionless gusts of air who no longer know or care about the ones we loved when we were Alive? Do we reincarnate and if so do we become reborn as Animals (even Slugs) with no conscience like we did before, or could we be reborn as different People in another Country with no connection at all with our previous lives??
Or!… do we get to have an option to continue on in a Ghostly form, and if so, doing what,??? for how long and what are People who died centuries ago doing now??
So many questions and no way to answer them.
@kiely, spot on! It raises all of those questions and many, many more for which we cannot provide definite answers. And when you do not know an answer the only logical answer is “I don’t know”, or agnosticism. To argue that religious people cannot prove their assertions therefore my assertions must be correct is argumentum ad ignorantium, which is what Ailbhe is engaging in.
This is my whole point, I’m not saying there is a god, I’m just saying I don’t know if there is a god, and nobody else knows either.
Egg Head, I agree totally. As Carl Sagan said regarding Religion and Beliefs – ” I don’t want to believe, I want to know”
The existence or the non-existence of God cannot be empirically verified even if new scientific tests were to be brought about. Go’s existence or non-existence is a question outside of science of scientific method.
There are many who propose the existence of God and assert it to be a reality not to be contradicted. They proclaim the existence of a God which requires to be affirmed and adored by human worship. Fair enough. Clearly such a notion of God has security issues. The constant craving for affirmation is unhealthy.
I do not deny the existence of God or of a divinity or supreme being, petulant or otherwise but I can say that the notion of what God is or is not is a human notion, a human interpretation and therefore as flawed as is science and other human constructs.
I do not believe in the existence of God of a god, even as a provisional hypothesis, and so I leave God to those who are compelled by their brain structure to believe in God.
As for me, I function adequately and satisfactorily without a god belief and confess to being relieved that I need no longer be condemned to the stake for my agnosticism.
The notion of God invented by western religions seems to be rather needy, demanding, with a lot of issues and lacking the common touch. I can’t say that I find the notion appealing and I see that he needs the Defamation Act 2009 to protect himself against disrespect.
I see God does not post comments on the Journal. is he banned?
I have to agree with Egg Head here.
There’s no reliable evidence for any of the “gods” people have worshipped throughout history. Does that prove that there is no ultimate creator of the universe? It might do. It might also mean that we simply haven’t discovered it yet.
What’s to say our concept of a creator is even in the right ball park? The universe itself could be “god”, but without intent or intervention, just the few laws that govern all existence. It would all depend upon which aspects you choose to assign to this ultimate creator.
But to categorically state there can be no God, of any description is just as absurd as claiming that there is. The truth is, no one knows. We all have our own theories and not one of us has the ultimate answer of what happened before the big bang.
What if the aborigines are right and we were sung into existence? What if Billy Connolly is right and our entire universe is just one atom of a cup of tea or the leg of a chair? Or Bill Hicks’ young man on acid, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively?
We could be any number of things. But no one truly knows what. So why be so set on one view? Agnosticism is truly the more rational view point than any sort of gnostic view. We cannot know, it’s folly to claim we do.
Shanti,
Talk about illogic.
The universe cannot be god if by your definition he/she/they is without intent. You are describing an inanimate object just like a stone, which creates it’s own microclimate about itself on the atomic level and even about itself as a whole. The laws of nature then happen within and about it, but without consciousness. Once consciousness is involved then consciousness itself takes account of it;surroundings, and that taking account has by itself the act of changing the condition of the system it is created or involved in. Thus your idea of no intent and no intervention means that that idea of a god cannot by definition be a god.
The rest of your tripe is the usual nonsensical bsing bolloxology.
Mor(m)ons believe that Jesus Christ went to America in a kind of wooden submarine!
Catholics apparently believe he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of our father, receive our prayer.
And that they’re eating his body and drinking his blood at mass each week.. That bit always creeped me out as a kid when I went to mass with my nan.
Shanti,
Just as long as you make sure to display your pious hypocrisy and defend muslims on any article involving islam and attack Christianity on any article involving them, then yer all on the right side Shami
Wow, someone’s got a vendetta..
Let’s see, the dominant religion which has abused its privilege in our society vs the minority getting tarred with the brush of hatred by xenophobic dolts.. Hmm…
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I for one am opposed to repeating the persecution of minoroties meted out by Christians in Europe.
Shanti,
Xenophobia is an irrational fear of the foreigner. What has that got to do with religion?
So now nobody is allowed dislike any religion but they are zenophobic according to racist-screamer, Shanti. And looking at how the minority peace-cult Islam is notching up gang rape of white British children, per capita they are outdoing anything Christianity has done regarding pedophilia. But like I said keep proving how you are such a biased anti white hate monger, defending the rape of children as long as the rapists are not white and the abused children are white, now there’s something worse than any racist slander you can think of to be truly ashamed of.
*xenophobic
Powerful stuff.
He advocates equal rights but then advocates the removal of our democratic right to a vote
No he doesn’t you troll
said the upcoming vote on marriage equality in Ireland “scares” him as “this isn’t a right that should be put up for a vote”
Right there Jeff, put your reading glasses on and take the cape off.
he’s saying that you shouldn’t have to vote on human rights. did you have to vote on your right to marry, to shelter, to life? No! now stop being pedantic and twisting words for your own warped view
Well said Jeff.
Anyone who has a different opinion to Jeff is derided as “warped” talk about double standards
Yeah, I’d say anyone who has a double standard with regard to human rights is warped for sure.
No, he didn’t say “anyone”, he just said you. YOU have a warped opinion. Not “anyone who disagrees with him”. Do you think we should all get to vote on whether to outlaw Star Trek?
There is nothing warped about wanting a vote on an important piece of legislation, why should it be railroaded into law to appease your agenda. Also I never stated my opinion on the matter by the way, only that voting was important.
Live long
What is this “agenda” you speak of?
Spock, there is certainly something wrong in wanting to have a say in what total strangers do in their private lives. You seem to like Star Trek. I ask you again; do you think we should all have the right to vote on whether or not YOU get to watch it?
Changing the law of the land is a very public matter Eamonn, the human ‘rite-on’ brigade are making a mockery of real right’s campaigning
So I ask you again, should *I* get the right to vote on whether *you* get to watch Star Trek?
Listen spock, the vast majority of our laws are written or changed without a vote. Why should this be any different?
Would you like to have a referendum to see if you could marry? I doubt it somehow.
He who yell’s loudest aint right. This isn’t a council vote on parking meters, this is too important and everyone’s opinions and concerns should be noted. The stakes are too high.
You still haven’t answered my question, Spock. Also, on what you say there, why? Why is it important for you to have a say on whether total strangers you’re never going to meet can marry or not?
We have to vote on this because it will alter our constitution. The only way out constitution can be amended is through a referendum, the ultimate power lays with the people, it’s democracy.
What stakes? Ffs, do you think people are just going to stop “being gay” if the law isnt changed, or do you think everyone will be gay all of a sudden if it does? Your a nut job. The guy didnt say anything about taking away the right to vote, he just said it shouldnt be in the constitution in the first place, because its not a matter of law whether he is gay or not
Would you allow total stranger’s to change our constitution based on their own selfish desire’s? Can I change it to suit my own desire’s? Maybe if I shout over you and chuck a couple of insults about I can.
This isn’t America where right wing nutjobs talk about “The Constitution” like it was the bible. This is about giving human beings equal rights. Of course we are legally obliged to vote on changes to the constitution but the point is that *morally*, this shouldn’t be up for a vote. You STILL haven’t answered the questions Live Long. Why is it so important for you to be able to have a say in the private lives of total strangers and should I get the right to vote on whether you get to watch Star Trek or not?
Live Long , I know what Mr Lance Black is meaning – fundamental civil rights for a minority should never be subject to the vote of a majority. Marriage is fundamental to our society and is something that we heterosexuals take for granted – the old-fashioned tradition of asking the woman’s father for permission is one that is upheld in spirit only. The true decision to marry is made between the two adult, unrelated consenting participants – no other permission is required.
This referendum is essentially unfair to the gay and lesbian couples in Ireland, because instead of nominally asking their father-in-law, they (and we, their families and friends) must now go door to door in the weeks before the referendum to ask all the people in Ireland for permission to allow two people in love to have their love and commitment to be recognised in legal civil marriage.
Here is an excellent video which illustrates this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ
If the vote is No then the people of Ireland will have slammed that door in the face of the LGBT citizens of this country, and we will have enshrined discrimination in our Constitution – a sad and terrible notion.
I’m going to rent a tank to insure I get to that polling booth, I want to exercise my democratic right to vote.
Nobody is denying your right to vote but by insisting a vote is required, you and the nation run the risk of denying a significant segment of Irish society a human right. And if you ask me, that’s not a balanced method at all.
You do that, Spock. I’m going to lobby the government to ban science fiction. It provides escapism to way too many virgins.
I’ll take escapism over delusion any day, go to Sudan for a real taste of these human rights you seek. The idea is to convince people of your argument for this proposed right you seek, all you’ve done is provide back answer’s and insults.
I’m going to get a big NO tattooed across my face, next to my Starfleet tattoo.
But, Spock! SciFi gives comfort to virgins when they should be working out how to better interact with other people and how to be more attractive to them. Think of all the babies not being born because of SciFi! It’s detrimental to society! I demand a vote on banning Star Trek.
Also, did you just imply that gay folk shouldn’t be talking about human rights because Sudan exists? Weren’t you just saying how important this vote is? Well, how about *you* go to Sudan to get a taste of the voting rights you seek? See how stupid that argument is? Probably not.
You sir are clearly butt hurt, you are trying to change people’s attitudes and beliefs by flailing your arms around and demanding “rights”. Democratic institutions are in place to stop bitter lemons getting what they want with bullyboy tactics and we’re all the better for it.
Another gay person screaming look at me, poor me I’m gay, has he been neglected of 5 meals a day, I don’t think so, over dramatic as usual….
Where did I try to change your beliefs Virgin Boy?
It’s ironic how p1ss easy it is to wind up trolls.
Not adhering to Eamonns “right on!” beliefs makes you a troll, virgin etc etc. When are you setting up the ‘re-education’ camp Eamonn?
No, again, it’s just you. I mean, you don’t answer questions, you hurl insults, you clearly have a victim complex and you argue against things nobody said. If you’re not a troll you’re an absolute moron. Welcome to the 21st century where gay folk, and indeed anyone who isn’t a god fearing conservative dullard, doesn’t have to be bullied into hiding who they are by the likes of bitter losers like your good self. That’s what it’s all about though, isn’t it. That’s why you don’t like gay marriage. It reminds you that even people you think should be on the margins of society are getting laid and are happier than you are.
Drivel, never insulted you and never said I opposed anything. If you base your happiness and equality on being able to tell people your ‘getting laid’ as you call it then that truly is a sorry state of mind.
Couple of posts up you wrote;
“Democratic institutions are in place to stop bitter lemons getting what they want with bullyboy tactics”
So you DID hurl insults. And no, I don’t base my happiness on being able to tell you I’m getting laid. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Seriously, I really can’t work out where you made that logical leap. It looks like I was clearly wrong about you being a troll then. This is like mocking the afflicted. I’ll leave you alone now to furrow your brows in anger at the screen.
Live long and prosper Eamonn
Swiss Cheese Constitution HERE will allow more access for the E.U.?
Live Long, you sully the memory of Spock with your logically fallacious comments, hang your head in shame!!
Logic is the beginning of wisdom. You owe it to the memory of the world’s favourite Vulcan to at least try to use some.
Shanti, he was an actor in a fictional story…
Never mind getting out and voting, there’s a rediculously large portion of students that aren’t even registered to vote
There was a registration desk set up for a couple days in my college a couple of months back, encouraging people to vote for marriage equality. Not sure what is happening at other colleges though.
Marriage Equality had a massive campaign last November to get students to register, I think they visited most universities and colleges in the country.
Why? Some legal reason or lethargy?
The fact that its even up for a vote is shameful. Hey Government, you just keep the schools and hospitals running, don’t decide how people can live their lives. It’s an absolute disgrace. We’re so far behind the times it’s embarrassing.
Well as far as I’m aware, it’s a practical necessity. The constitution defines marriage as man and woman and no law can be written to contradict the constitution.
The constitution can only be changed via referendum, therefore a referendum is needed for gay marriage.
And really weve come a long way, we decriminalized homosexuality in 1993, that is not a long time ago.
Now we are legalizing same sex marriage with months of other European nations. That’s a huge catchup with the norms of European nations.
I also wonder how well a referendum on the issue would do in other nations most of whom passed it without a vote
Diarmaid the constitution does not define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Article 41.3.1 of the Constitution says only that “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
The vote in May if passed is merely to copperfasten legislation from being legally objected too if civil same sex marriage were to be legislated for without a referendum.
The referendum is in part happening because the government are too chicken to just go ahead and legislate.
Actually J, there was a court ruling and legislation passed that excluded gay couples from getting married. This is why it has to go to the people, the government can’t just ride roughshod over what the courts rule, there’s a separation of powers.
Plus, there’s other legislation to be repealed.
God is forgiving
@Thierry Did He tell you that, or are you telling us that.
Thierry – Yep, nice forgiving chap, he even kills you for the sins of your father:
“Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants”. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
Thierry, if God exists, he’ll have to beg for our forgiveness
WHY as IT IS MAN WHO DO ALL THE SICK THINGS TO EACH OTHER?
Maybe because God told them to?
” 1 When the LORD your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before you, the Hittite, and the Girgashi, and the Amori, and the Kana`ani, and the Perizzi, and the Hivvi, and the Yevusi, seven nations greater and mightier than you;
2 and when the LORD your God shall deliver them up before you, and you shall strike them; then you shall utterly destroy them: you shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them;
3 neither shall you make marriages with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, nor his daughter shall you take to your son.”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/hnv/deuteronomy/passage/?q=deuteronomy+7:1-3
No Shanti,
What starts anything due to a good reason will always get used to back up someones elses own beliefs, people will use what others agree with in order to give validity to their own beliefs to others. With religion it is not that I agree with god mentality but gos agrees with me mentality and they are not the same?
With religion it is not that I agree with god mentality but god agrees with me mentality and they are not the same?
That is why there are so many sects of different religions etc because people want control over others and they use what is accepted and believed in to control others, it is not about agreeing on a belief but using a belief to control others, the main reason this is done is because control as in a religion is used firstly for the feeling of control and from that comes the power of control what people believe and you control their money. At the core can be tribal sense of beliefs create groups and groups exists because we are more animal than spirit. That are thinking and believing is more to do with are nature as animals due out of the need for safety and genetic purity? That what we believe is as important to us as our genes that we have reached the next step to say that what we believe is as important to hand down as our genes our. So we have evolved to a stage where as animals our nature incorporates beliefs as important as genes. So no matter how we try and put it religion and political beliefs like culture can be important to us because these have been incorporated into us as a species.
If we want to grow in the spirit then we have to evolve beyond what we are and not let our animal selves taint what we believe. I think a lot in the Bible and other books are written by men who had agendas and are bias but that doesn’t mean that there is no divine reason they do not exist. As people love to tweek things their way and put a slant onto them? If we want to follow a spiritual way of life then we have to realise that we are bias to our animal self, the way we see the world is through animal eyes and our emotions guide what we believe, as do where we are in groups from families to communities to areas as we grow up to where we settle down? The Bible tries to say that there is a bigger picture, that we are not in control, that arrogance and ego makes fools out of people, that we are the caretakers of this planet and for the generations that follow us as well as to other life. So to be more spiritual we need to be less animal in nature by becoming more caring about everything other than our own wants, desires and beliefs because our selfishness only brings harm? So what is wrong with the Bible if it can teach this?
Michael – have you actually read the bible? Are we supposed to ignore all the hatred, jealousy, murder, rape, genocide, misogyny etc and just listen to the nice spiritual parts. The Bible is more hateful than Mein Kampf.
Luke 14:26
” If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”
There’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that contradicts itself, and a lot that doesn’t make much sense. But I completely agree, it’s been used as a tool of oppression and slavery since it was first popularised.
As for the rest of what has been said there, lots of “religions” teach the same thing, that there’s more to this world and this existence than just us.
So why not be Buddhist? Heathen? Pagan? Hindu?
There’s reasons I don’t believe in the biblical God. The Bible being the biggest one.
Paul Fahey, to read the Bible you need hermeneutics to study it, sometimes the stories are not stories but are double language, when we read a story in the Bible we are reading it without knowing the time, history, culture, traditions nor the use of the language. The Bible is more than stories like the Book of Ruth you think it is a story with people in it but some believe now that the people in this story does not represent anyone but they represent countries like Israel etc. That most of the old testament can be about Jesus and his second coming as well, that the Book of Genesis has more to do with the Book of Revelations than any other book in the Bible as well as with the Book of Joshua. The Bible is historical but it also represents the idea that history has cycles, that it talks about the past as well as the future, it has double language where people can represent countries, it was written for people who are Jewish at those times in history. The Bible is in two parts the Old Testament that feeds into the New Testament and they are different Books, sometimes these books do not make sense until you know other works like Gnostic scriptures or the dead sea scrolls or even Jewish mythology and history. The Bible has many mistakes in it because it was translated badly but how can a person blame it for being Historical?
Shanti, to read and understand the Bible you have to learn its language… As a lot of it was translated wrongly. Hebrew mistakes in the old Testament and Greek for the New Testament…
“To fully understand Christ’s meaning here, the meaning of the Greek word translated “hate” must be examined. In this verse, the original Greek word is miseo, meaning “to love less” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).
Therefore, Christ is saying that anyone following Him, making a commitment to the Christian way of life, must love Him more than family and friends, and even life itself. Christ stated, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends…I have called you friends” (John 15:13, 15). God demonstrated this love for us in that “…while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
http://rcg.org/questions/p102.a.html
How dare the religious zealots condemn someone for their nature.How dare they, what special right do they think they have? Because of a faith?
The likes of the Morons sorry i meant the Mormons easy mistake ;) are nothing more than a deluded cult like all religions.
Anyone ever notice the glazed over look in the eyes of the uber-religious? Especially noticeable in the Mormons,Jehovah witnesses and fundamental biblically literal Christians? (P. S I dont want to offend Islam they’ve a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand blood for cartoons, pigs, satire and books of fiction)
A certain Bible loving boxer from bray display it in an ad for women going places!
Comes across as a bit of a wuss. He needs to dry his eyes and grow a pair.
The man shows emotion while talking about being told all of his childhood that he was destined for hell, that he was the same as murderers and rapists for something he had NO choice over, and you call him a wuss.
How empathetic of you, Tony.
Make yourself scarce on the 22nd of May will you. Thanks.
Some people just want to be seen as victims all their lives. He’s an adult now, he needs to stop crying like a little girl.
It’s an emotional topic, Tony. It’s ok for guys to show emotion, you know? We’re not robots.
Christ, no wonder mental health in this country has the stigma it does, with attitudes like yours.
If he has mental health issues maybe he should get counselling or something. Why does he have to stand on a podium and tell everyone ? The last thing he says in the article above is ” go out and tell your stories” ! We all have problems, many a lot worse than his, but we don’t all feel the need to stand on a stage and tell everyone.
He doesn’t have mental health issues, it wasn’t what I was trying to say. I’m talking about your attitude and it’s effects.
How do you expect people, men especially, to open up about feeling depressed, or suffering from anxiety when the moment they show the slightest bit of emotion, they’re called “wuss” and told to “stop crying like a little girl”. (Direct quotes from you).
He isn’t just speaking for the sake of speaking, he’s telling his story in the hopes that it will help others. He’s speaking of his experiences for those children who are currently in the same situation he was in. He’s speaking about how toxic attitudes like the Mormon church teach can be to young, impressionable kids. He’s speaking about how he got out of it, so that those kids can believe that they will get through it as well.
But people like you Tony, who have no empathy whatsoever it seems, wouldn’t understand.
I do wonder though, if this was a straight man talking about how he suffered some trauma as a kid, and he started crying while discussing it – would you have made the same comment?
But straight men don’t want to seen as the eternal victims the way gays do. There’s a lot worse going on in the world than him being called a sinner by his parents. Cry me a river, go get professional help if you can’t deal with it.
“But straight men don’t want to seen as the eternal victims the way gays do.”
So that’s a pretty clear answer to my question – you’re only problem with this man is because he’s gay and how dare he talk about the mental abuse he suffered in his childhood in the off-chance it will help one kid in the same situation.
“There’s a lot worse going on in the world than him being called a sinner by his parents”
Has anyone EVER claimed otherwise?
No thanks Tony, we’ll go ensure we are legally equal. But wait, you don’t want that. You want us to shut up, seek counselling and be second class citizens.
What a shameful excuse for a human being.
Here we go….Let me guess. Is this the point were I get called homophobic and bigoted ? You’re proving my point for me. Eternal victims…
“Is this the point were I get called homophobic and bigoted ?”
I don’t have to say it, it’s clear for everyone else to see.
Hi Ailbhe.
I love you too. xx….. yawn….
Well done Chris. Way to get loads of people on your side before May.
LOL.
Are you being victimized now, Tony?
Awe Tony wants to cry victim. Hypocritical as ever
Absolutely Chris, I’m on the verge of tears here….
Well, Tony, its ok to cry if you want to.
Unlike you, I wouldn’t insult a man who displays emotion.
Why is it a bad thing for a man to be able to express emotion about something happening to them?
Bottling up emotions leads to tension, which can go two ways, it can manifest as depression or it can manifest as rage. Neither is a particularly positive outcome for either the man, or the people around him.
This insinuation that men should be able to take anything and never complain is probably largely to blame in the shocking statistics of male suicide.
I can’t help but feel that those who spout this drivel are actually the ones who are so ill at ease with the feelings they have that they don’t want to be confronted with anyone who is comfortable expressing themselves honestly, because it threatens their way of being. Which is to suppress and run and hide from every negative emotion.
To this, I say Tony, please, learn to deal with your emotions. While I may disagree with everything you say, I would still hate to see you wind up joining that statistic if things should ever get too much and you are too stubborn to seek help.
God almighty. I never read such condescending bullşhit in all my life ! You really think you are an authority on everything don’t you ? Because I think your man is a bit of a ponce who needs to grow a pair suddenly I need to seek help ?? Lol !!
When I need help “dealing with my emotions” I’ll let you know. Some of you lot really are away with the fairies!
Whoa there, no need to get so defensive. I was merely pointing out the tremendous and quite frankly unnecessary pressure this “stiff upper lip” nonsense puts on men to suppress their emotions rather than deal with them in a healthy manner.
If things get too much and someone’s under the impression that they have to “man up” about it, like they tell others to, it’s inevitable that they crack.
I didn’t say you had. I didn’t make any insinuation as to your current mental state. Simply commented on how that kind of talk affects the male psyche and how we can all end up having a breakdown at some point. Regardless of my interactions with you here, I still wouldn’t wish that for you.
It wasn’t meant as a slur.
Growing up in that church I heard from a very, very early age that homosexuality was sin next to the crime of murder. So from the age of 3, 4, 5, 6, – when I was just a little kid, three foot tall – I knew that I was right down there with all the sinners and the murderers and the rapists. It was very scary.
I didn’t know I was straight till I was about 10.
One does wonder how a 4 year old is gay
I did note that, but if he’s telling the truth, and not embellishing things to further the gay rights machine then I think it probably informs us that talking about sexual things with kids is a very bad thing to do as you are placing concepts they don’t really grasp in their heads. Just imagine if you kept talking to kids from the age of 3 about homosexuality etc, they will probably obsess about it. They may end up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy too. The horrible thing, is that there is a push in some gay activist circles, to indoctrinate kids as young as kindergarten, with gay and gender bending concepts in the interests of ‘anti-bullying’.
Sex education is taught in some nordic countries at a very young age. They have the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world. Im sure when these kids are being educated about these matters its very basic but none the less they understand the concept. We have a bad attitude towards sex & sexual health in Ireland so teaching our kids about such matters may benefit them even at such a young age.
You’ll forgive me Mjhint if I don’t advocate teaching primary school kids where to stick what into where.
Well I dont know if you are correct or not but in nordic countries their policy & results say you are. Lets not knock til we at least discuss it.
James Mark Donnelly – What the hell are you on about? Kids can’t BECOME Gay. And besides that, Kids from 3, if talked to about Sexuality, would learn nothing from it cos their just Kids only young enough to play with their toys, other Kids and starting to learn to Read and Write, so any talk of Sexuality would pass right over their Heads. You clearly know nothing about Children in order to write such Garbage.
Netherlands are extremely open about sex and drugs and as a result have some of the lowest teen pregnancy rates, abortion rates, drug use rates, and their teens are the ones most likely to wait until adulthood before trying any of it.
It’s like how on the continent people don’t really have the same drinking issues we have. They see drinking as an accompaniment. Not a focus. Kids are given wine with their dinner, they know they can have it so they don’t go crazy for the big taboo!
Here we are taught: abstain until marriage, all drugs are bad, and you can’t have a drop of alcohol until you’re 18.
Its no wonder we’re so messed up. The forbidden fruit is always extra tempting..
What kind of person is aware of their sexual preference from the age of 3 or 4 or 5 or 6?
Ailbhe,
Could you please provide the study that shows this is normal? After you’ve wiped the tears of joy from your eyes, of course.
I’ve never claimed to have known my sexuality at that age Paul. You’ve just offered proof that you’re an obnoxious pr**k though. Thanks for that.
You really are a charmer aren’t you !
Well Tony, when I put up a post with honesty, one that makes me vulnerable and some plonker takes the piss, I’m hardly going to thank him now am I. He’s an utter narcissist and wants the spotlight on him rather than the rights of others. Much like yourself!
Evidence based research, Ailbhe?
I’ve said it before Ailbhe, you can dish it out but you sure as hell can’t take it.
Paul, I’m not going to back up somebody elses claim. I don’t know if it’s true or not. I don’t claim it to be fact.
Evidence based research my arse. I wanted to kiss my best friend when I was six or seven. Without a doubt I knew I was gay, although I didn’t have a word for it, but I also knew it was wrong. Quite the burden for children to carry around but sure why would homophobes worry about that?
I had “feelings” for a boy at a young age, I think I had my first “crush” although I had no idea what that really was or what it meant, when I was in infants in primary school. I’m heterosexual.
Some people never take an interest in a partner their entire lives, what’s to say there’s a cut off point that they all start at? Are we not all individuals? So this guy knew at a young age, I knew at a young age, Ailbhe was a bit older, presumably so were those questioning this.
As another poster said, we are not robots. We are not programmed to switch on at a certain age. It’s like adolescence. You remember there was always one guy with impressive beard growth vs the guy who had a pathetic wisp. The girl who got big books really young vs all those who didn’t develop until later.
It’s kinda silly to assume we all discover these things about ourselves at the same rate. Plus, as I am heterosexual I know that my sexual orientation is portrayed as the norm so I don’t even need to “discover” it. It’s thrust upon me. I can only imagine that to a gay person who is realising they are gay the fact that heterosexuality is shoved in their faces all the time makes it feel all the more noticeable, because you will realize when you are different pretty quickly.
Haha, big boobs.. Damn you autocorrect..
Wow Paul!!? How did aibhne expressing how happy she would feel if the bill passes annoy you so much that you felt like taking a dig at her? The other day you kept referring to gay couples as Bert and Ernie, why? it’s one thing for you to express why you may be against marriage equality, it’s another to use mocking references and snide remarks while doing so.
Hope to see you all at church later folks !
What Church AS there are so many?
He talks a lot of sense about human rights to love who you choose. But all of you planning on rushing out to vote yes remember its a yes for FG its a yes or control, its a yes or austerity not human rights. Its Turkeys voting for Christmas. Its a yes for Enda Kenny. We already have the right to love and marry who we choose. What you are voting on is to let government into your private contracts. A dog doesn’t need a licence it doesn’t know the difference, a TV doesn’t need a licence and a marriage or love doesn’t need a licence. There is nothing good can come from voting yes or buying these licences. A school cant have a bake sale because of licences, a young lad cant go into temple bar and sing a song with out a licence. STOP the madness stop stamping your feet and demanding to give away control. Stop emotive speeches for the right to give a corrupt ugly government more money to squander. Wake up folks its a scam.
What a load of scaremongering bs.
Agreed Ailbhe, utter bs.
This is a referendum, not an election. You are voting on the Constitution, which is the highest law of our land. As a constitutional Republic we are in charge of this law, and only we may make changes to it.
Voting no in the referendum would have zero effect on the government, Irish water, the bank bailout, or the world Cup.
It will only affect the rights of gay people who want to get married.
You will get your chance to send your message to Kenny and his goons loud and clear, but this is not it. That’s set for 2016, but given what’s happened in previous FG/Lab coalitions, you may get a date even sooner. Save your ire until then and we shall all decimate them together!
By the talks of this story you think that this was the last hurdle for enlightenment, it is not as they is still inequality everywhere in all aspects of life.
Harassment, slander, liable, criminality, b1tch1ness, then there is psychopaths, sociopaths, ar53holes, they are still part of life and are of many others lives still. So humanity has gotten worse and the worse it gets then the more it tries to look liberal and equal but the worse it is getting in reality…
have your say