No body is banging about their sexuality Adam. We are banging about the problem of homopobia. Which we are perfectly within our rights to do so.

Guys get on with your lives.

@larrissa says the ideologue who cant handle one of her precious victims groups has different opinions.

Larissa you seem to like calling gay and bisexuals homophobic.

@critical thinker

Nonsense! She doesn’t believe any genuine gay people disagree with her to begin with.

Shes totally sane and looks through things objectively and not through the lens of her crazy ideology. She totally knows that a gay person cant possibly ever disagree with her politically, that would be heresy!!- sorry I mean “unprogressive”.

This guy knows what he is talking about.

@thewalkingbread Who?

You … hate speach is a limit to freedom of speach , hate crime laws are essentially making the whole situation worse. I can punch a white athesit in the fact and get two years but if i punch a black gay islamic cripple i get 5 ? MADNESS.

@thewAlkingbread

I cant tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

The problem here is that people are mixing up political ideology and feelings. Most people in Ireland are left leaning and have personal views on issues that cover the whole spectrum. You might be absolutely fine with gay rights but not like unfettered immigration. You might be for abortion but a racist. The SJW’s think that they own the socialist ideology but the really they aren’t to the left. They are in the clouds. It is a different place to politics. It is a social science feelings therapy group where everyone needs legal protection from feeling offended. How inclusive are you if you scream for rights for non-binary identifying people who feel subjugated for their beliefs but castigate Catholics for their beliefs or castigate people who wish to keep undocumented refugees from Islamic terrorist regions. I’m sure the people screaming for gender neutral policies would be the first to scream how uncomfortable they were if I walked into a ladies toilet in a bar or restaurant. It’s cloud cuckoo land ideology masquerading as politics. Until we are all one homogeneous neutral soup without a soul or opinion these people will find something to be offended about. You can’t be gay unless you feel subjugated. You can’t be a pro-life woman because you are letting the side down. That ideology is more fascist than the worst fascism. It is more intolerant than religious fundamentalism.

@Aguy..
Surely if you were gay, you would be called “AGayWithARany”

So would it be acceptable for someone to shout the N word at a black person ? The F word to describe a gay person is equally as bad , derogatory language is not acceptable .

The F word?

@AGuywithARant. Since when were the no 12 year old gay people? Yes A lot of adults can handle the hate speech. But children and adolescents are far less likely to be able to handle it .This is evident in the imposed mental health issues that young LGBT have and often remain there for life as a result of of this hate speech. Many young lgbt persons self harm and many more die by suicide. Ireland has an Epidemic problem with suicide among young people. One could only wonder how many of those young people were LGBT but could never tell anybody. But that’s okay as long as we don’t outlaw hate speech. The right to life is far less important than your right to preach hatred.

John,

How would the word “gay” be in any way derogatory?

Sorry John

I misread your post, I thought you were having a go at me for my misspelled joke attempt.

the “F” word as in the original post is of course a derogatory term and is completely unnacceptable. There is a tricky ethical line between freedom of speech and hate filled insults. Its very important to ensure that people can express opinions, that we may not feel comfortable with. That in no way should allow people to insult and abuse others.

I think there should be a distinction between personally harassing someone with abusive language and using offensive language to describe groups of people. In the US, Klu Klux Klan members are able to disseminate propaganda by throwing their newsletters which are filled with offensive, racist, anti-Semitic bile onto driveways. They are allowed to do this because of the freedom of speech they enjoy in the US.

If someone was doing the same here, I would just put it in the bin and ignore it. I wouldn’t take the view that they should not be allowed to publicly air their beliefs.

In Germany, you cannot admit you believe the holocaust didn’t happen (if you are one of those morons). While I abhor people who believe stupid nonsense like holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists, I believe they should still be allowed to disseminate their views publicly. It’s absolute madness that you cannot speak your mind freely in Germany and say what you really believe. Stupidity shouldn’t be illegal, just ignored.

The gay lobby shouldn’t be given any special status. People should be able to use any derogatory language they like as long as they are not making a personal attack on an individual in my view.

Personally, I don’t disagree with you but then they shouldn’t go running like little £%&1h’s when they’re called homophobes or completely out argued. Which they do…

People should be free to spout whatever hateful bile (excluding incitement, slander) they want, and you should be free to challenge them on it.

It’s as simple as that – there’s zero need for oppressive legislation here, especially considering our current laws on free speech are hardly very liberal at the moment.

@Malachi, to a certain extent I agree, with you, but Freedom of Speech should never be used as an excuse to spread hatred and insults on others, and that’s where laws on hate speech and slander come in, you are free to insult and spew your hatred, but you then will have to deal with the consequences of this.

Free Speech just means exactly that, you’re allowed to say what you want, but it doesn’t make you immune from the consequences of hate speech and insults.

@Qwerty

If only it was that simple. It makes some sense to ban the dissemination of untruths and misinformation, particularly when it is something as emotive as the holocaust. Unfortunately it also stifles debate on the realities of the holocaust and perhaps allows certain people to use it to put forward a viewpoint that cannot be challenged. You can see the same with alternative remedies. Should we ban the charlatans who sell so called “remedies” for which there is zero evidence of efficacy. I would say probably yes, but does that then stifle research into natural remedies that actually do work, and which may not be in the interests of large pharmaceutical companies to follow up on.

There is no reason to insult a gay person by shouting “f&g” at them, and anyone doing so should be appropriately dealt with, But should people who have questions about, for example, the impact of gay parenting of a child, be allowed to ask them and debate them in public? I would say yes.There are a lot of posters on here who would say no. Its a fine and tricky line to get right.

Define hate speech. Insults?

@Craba,

You’re stating: “But should people who have questions about, for example, the impact of gay parenting of a child, be allowed to ask them and debate them in public? I would say yes.”

I absolutely agree, people should be allowed to ask and debate these questions, but the point of a debate is that it should be done respectfully, and when you’re being presented with evidence, that contradicts your opinion, then you should have at least the respect to check it, and not just start shouting “I’m right, and you’re wrong” as the likes of Tony Kilduff do, just to name one of the loudest here in thread

Larissa, I abhor people who spread hateful speech, however I would never seek to prevent them from saying the disgusting things they say with hate speech laws.

The reason I say this is that disgraceful ideas do not go away when you ban them, they actually become stronger as these people feel their ideas have even more merit.

I believe that the way to combat bigotry is out in the open, because that way everyone can see the bigots being made to look like fools, and their ideas will be shut down.

A good example is holocaust denial, when there were laws banning this in certain European countries an undercurrent actually grew that supported this ridiculous denial of history. It just doesn’t work. I’d suggest that we let the bile see the light of day so it melts away and the good ideas get traction.

“Define hate speech.”

I cant, but if it was to be banned, someone would have to, but who? Again it is a very complex issue.

@Larissa
I have just experienced “Tony_Kilduff”. Not pleasant.

Ah come on ffs, I voted in favour of gay right, was delighted they’ll now get to share in the same misery my parents did and some day i will too. But Christ lads, you have 1 life, stop giving a fxck about what other people think and get on with it. Its hard for all of us, get over yourself and your “feelings”. No wonder they call us generation snowflake, were soft as fook.

There is a huge difference in hate speech and incitement to violence. A few years ago there was a Facebook page in kerry called something like “support the right to kill pavee babies” or something moronically offensive like that. It was banned and the person charged with inciting hatred, and rightly so. If they had called the page “I think pavee babies should be killed” then there would be no charge. It is a thought, not a call to action. People can think what they want. My kids think it should be illegal for me to take my shirt off on the beach. It offends them and they cringe. If they see me in my boxers they nearly vomit. The pain they feel is real. It is not actionable though. It is uncomfortable for them but that is all. Not every discomfort should be made illegal. I always say to them when they tell me to put a top on that I will not be illed on by their fascist ideals, laugh and put one on anyway. Offence is natural. Feeling offended is natural. Offending people is unavoidable. Inciting hatred is illegal, and rightly so.

I agree with Malachi on this one.

Hate Speech laws while often well intentioned are insidious and often supply the government with the power to criminalise dissent, I do not trust the state to be an arbitrator of what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and what doesn’t nor do I think it’s acceptable for the state to prosecute people for the expression of political opinion regardless of how odious the public perceives it.

The application of these laws can often be targeted at political activists, like in France for instance. People who advocated for a boycott of Israel were arrested and prosecuted. That’s the fundamental problem with these laws: hate speech is subjective. To many supporters of Israel simply demanding accountability for the war crimes of their leaders is tantamount to hate speech. Your definition of hate speech is entirely dependent on where your political allegiances lie which is why the government should generally not police speech and instead provide as much freedom as possible for one to express their political views.

“In France — self-proclaimed Land of Liberté — doing that makes you a criminal. As The Forward reported, the court “cited the French republic’s law on Freedom of the Press, which prescribes imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that ‘provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.’” Because BDS is inherently “discriminatory,” said the court, it is a crime to advocate it.”

“The French court ruling is part of a worldwide trend. As more and more people around the world recognize the criminal and brutal nature of the Israeli government, its loyalists have been increasingly trying literally to criminalize activism against the Israeli occupation. For that reason, “pro-Israel” activists this week celebrated this French assault on basic free speech rights.”

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/criminalization-of-anti-israel-activism-escalates-this-time-in-the-land-of-the-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-march/

The point I am making is that I am their Dad. It is offensive to them. I am also a Maths teacher. I am automatically hated by half of my students for just being that. Regardless of my personality. It is what I am that offends them. They hate what I am. It is who I am and what I do. Gay kids and straight kids hate me for being a Maths teacher. Foreign kids and rural kids and urban kids. It doesn’t matter. That’s their issue, not mine. Being offended by it is pointless. I won’t go roaring for extra rights and legal protection about this. It is not who I am. It’s what I do. It’s part of me but not my defining thing. You have to put up with not being liked for irrational reasons. It’s life.

Some good points there Monty.

Craba, To say what incitement to violence is – is valid, but defining ‘hate speech’ and ‘insults’ would be difficult and could go anywhere.

Free Speech is now becoming the Incitement to Hatred Act,this originates from the huge PRISON that IS the European Onion.At last the Irish people are now realising where our Treasonous Political “Elites” have actually done to our Sovereign Country.100 years ago our Forefathers gave their lives for Ireland to be “FREE ” from control from Foreign Governments. No more Orders from outside Forces.

I agree, Malachi, the consequences of hate speech should first be to deconstruct the hatred with facts and arguments, however once hate speech becomes incitement to violence, it should be dealt with by the law.

Ireland was much more evolved before the Roman boys came to civilise us. Same is true all over this planet.

Portia, learn some history. We were never conquered by the romans. My god, the cringe is unreal…..

Anti Establishment ,the worst king of Free Speech,soon to be called “Incitement to Hatred ” act ,coming all the way from Brussels. To question anything today might be a “Hate ” crime ,unless people rise up and do not allow our supposed Masters trample on us all.Resist this Attack on “Free Speech”,otherwise we all become SLAVES.

I agree it makes sense to have anti hate laws to protect inoffensive LGBT citizens in our country, we still have a long way to go. … you know who you are! Hate speech should not protect Radical Islam however.

Well said, this article is pushing for hate crime legislation that would make it more of an offense for an LGBT person to be attacked/verbally abused than it would for a straight person to be attacked/verbally abused. Far from equality, they’re now advocating for a special status for LGBT people that are now immune from crticism and cannot be questioned. I hope all LGBT people don’t buy this rubbish.

Daisy I’m not gay because i don’t have the correct opinion that a gay person should? Thats extremely homophobic. The type of homophobia only a far-lefty loon could come out with.

@thejynxeffect

Its mostly the hyper-gays. Y’know the walking stereotypes. I try to avoid them. Nothing but trouble! Plus I’m gay I like guys and they are basically just girls with a long john thomas if you get my drift!

gap people are starting to come out for Trump in the US now and people are losing their nut over it. there is an idea out there that the Left own the the gay block and Im pretty sure many gay people have plenty of differing opinions and that they are not card carrying sjw’s

homophobe! i think you’ve got an iona sized claim there, daisy.

@dave. I’ve been with trump since rand paul dropped out, but I can imagine Orlando was a big wake up call for many. My transgender friend’s attitude flipped almost instantly. I think lgbt are very quick to change and know when they are in danger.

Build That Wall ! Build That Wall !

@thejynx. And make it fabulous!!!!!

I have a really close lesbian friend and she has a girlfriend who would be considered very attractive to many men, myself included. Anyway, said friends girlfriend also has a male roommate who at first made “flattering comments” towards her which progressed to “ah but you’re not really gay” to threatening my friend. I’ve heard this “ahhhh but you’re not REALLY gay” story from lesbians time and time again but yeah… homophobia is dead.

Haha you’ve been watching Milo Yiannopolous no doubt

That’s exactly who I thought of reading his comments, jynx.

@titus. Thats horrible for your friend but still its anecdotal evidence. I’ve in doubt that isolated incidents of homophobia occur but the media is always trying to claim Ireland is a homophobic society and that is simply untrue

Ye it’s like the gender pay gap and campus rape culture. It doesn’t exist

@titus yes I do watch Milo Yiannopolous and sorry for quoting “make it fabulous” but I know leftists love to go on about gay people who have not had their voices heard, but as a gay person who is looked down on by many other gay people for not reaching the progressive consensus its a bit nice to hear a gay person who doesn’t buy Into this crap get media attention. Sorta make “my voice feel heard” as leftists put it

Ye Milo is my favourite gay person ever

You honestly think this is rare? It isn’t. This specific situation is constantly written about. I actually believe my friend was lucky considering she knows someone (another lesbian) who repeatedly turned a male roommate down and yet amazingly enough he walked in to her room in the middle of the night with his hand down his jocks.

@thejynx. Many leftists dont realise the amount of once “homophobic” conservatives that love milo were only homophobic because they thought that all gay people acted like a few certain commentators here that questioned my sexuality just because of my political stances.
A single person (milo) has no doubt done much more for destroying homophobia in the last 6 months Purely by showing that not all of us are perpetual victims. If the left wants people to be less homophobic it should start treating gay people as the diverse range of individuals we are and not their collectivist fluffy toy they can obsess over

@thejynx. Many leftists dont realise the amount of once “homophobic” conservatives that love milo were only homophobic because they thought that all gay people acted like a few certain commentators here that questioned my sexuality just because of my political stances.
A single person (milo) has no doubt done much more for destroying homophobia in the last 6 months Purely by showing that not all of us are perpetual victims. If the left wants people to be less homophobic it should start treating gay people as the diverse range of individuals we are and not their collectivist fluffy toy they can obsess ove

@titus. Yet again, horrible that he had his hands down his trousers and was walking around but itvis anecdotal evidence trying to prove we live in a homophobic society. Goggle “logical fallacy”

Thanks, I know well what a logical fallacy is. I point them out on here quite a bit. How exactly would you like this proven? I guarantee the testimony of many lesbians is on the Internet. Saying this is purely anecdotal when it is reported by so many lesbians is denialism. At the very least this behaviour is sexist and no different to harassment but judging get by your comments, I guess you don’t believe that’s a problem either. Just harmless “complimenting”, right?

Man with a Rant. I’m guessing you are a pure troll here, or Paddy J Manning (aka crazy bitter Kilkenny queen), or both.

Why william? Isnt daisy telling me im not gay because I said Ireland isnt a homophobic country a trollish thing? What trollish thing have i said? Saying gay people are individuals and their politics are not defined by who they sleep with? Yeah… What a great troll i am

AGuyWithARant, you’re no more gay than my cat is Taoiseach.

You’re a troll and a poor one at that.

Well the homophobes are out in force today. Exactly what part of one in five LGBT people has suffered physical violence and 30% of LGBT people being verbally abused for no other reason then the fact that they are gay. But how dare we use the word homophobia.

@TheJynxeffect.
” pushing for hate crime legislation that would make it more of an offense for an LGBT person to be attacked/verbally abused than it would for a straight person to be attacked/verbally abused.”

First of all hate crime is not exclusive to LGBT people. Hate crime legislation applies to any group who are targeted for no other reason than who they are. For example Membership of the Traveller
Racial Group, Ethnicity Religion Ground and so on.
Secondly of all people are more likely to be attacked if they are a member of such groups.
Thirdly NO that would not make it more of an offense for an LGBT person to be attacked/verbally. It would simply mean that the accused would be prosecutors under different legislation.
Fortaly. In a case of those who are attacked who are not part of these groups Their accused will will still be prosecuted in the same way they are now.

Isn’t it interesting the usual homophobes were silent on the article’s about the Orlando shootings or telling us that it had nothing to do with homophobia and every thing to do with islam?

@titus,

The only conclusion you can get from your anecdote is that your friend’s roommate is an a$$h0le. I’m sure there’s similar stories out there about straight women who have had an a$$h0le as a roommate, harassing them, after having spurned his or her advances.

He was particularly odious, I grant you. His problem though, was that he refused to accept her sexuality, predominantly because of her looks and because he did not view their relationship as “legitimate”. There is no way he would have suggested this if she had a boyfriend, let’s be honest. He might have still liked her but he wouldn’t have claimed their relationship was invalid.

My point is, it isn’t just anecdotal. If you look online there are countless reportings of this. It isn’t just from my limited conversations with lesbians.

@James Power
They really are out today. The funniest thing on here is the sheer amount of people who complain who left-leaning thejournal is all the while, unable to recognise that while the articles are more to the left, the comments are not. Not at all. It goes something like this (a by no means, conclusive list)

Thumbs up: Anti-feminism, anti-Islam, anti-immigration, anti-goverment
Thumbs down: Feminism, socialism, wealth

I have my own opinions on each of these things which are a mix of agreement and disagreement but this is the typical algorithm

@titus

You can’t draw that conclusion. your story is much more about sexism. He probably would have reacted exactly the same to a straight woman who rejected him. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.

I’m pretty good with data, you could say. You just keep ignoring the part where I said there are numerous accounts online. Also, why do you think sexism and homophobia are mutually exclusive? There’s a reason effeminate gay men get the hardest time, Craba.

You are dead right Titus the comments are so fare to the right they think they are the victims of their own hateful views. How dare we stand up against Gynophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia or Xenophobia. These thing are their god given right participate in

“I’m pretty good with data.” Is this in play by any chance?: “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect”

If you actually understood data you would know that unverified anonymous anecdotal evidence is completely worthless. Then you are drawing conclusions from that worthless data that makes no sense whatsoever based on the so called data.

Sexism and Homophobia are two completely different things. It makes no sense to look at them in terms of excusivity.

You are not any good with data, I would say.

It’s so dumb. I mean easily the biggest demographic on this site are straight men between the ages of 30 and 50 who complain that the world is too PC for their liking and want to share this “enlightenment” on a “PC liberal” forum where their views can right the wrongs of place. Oh accept there’s 200 others exactly like them so now it’s a liberal article site with a conservative echo chamber about which the conservatives still call it “leftist”. HA! Keep on breaking those barriers lads. You’re doing great.

I don’t know what it’ll take, James. Some of the comments on here are what you’d see on some religious nutball site.

Actually funny you should link Illusory Superiority considering I’ve been forced to mention it a few times. No, I said I’m good with data because as a scientist I generate and analyse it everyday in painstaking amounts. So, you could say I’m familiar with it.

For the last time, I’ve told you not to take my word for it: go on the internet. There are countless sites dedicated to this. Lesbians deal with sexism AND homophobia simultaneously. I don’t see how this is so hard for you to understand. There are likely countless papers on this but as I’m at work and commenting between incubations, I’m not trawling them up.

Oh and Just coming back to Dunning-Kruger again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

And additionally, have you never heard of corrective rape? Of the top of my head, there’s an example of sexism and homophobia occurring simultaneously. After all, all a woman needs is a good D, amirite?

The handling of data on a daily basis and and understanding and ability to draw conclusions from it are two different things, particularly in a social context.

Again, anecdotal evidence for the internet is worthless. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that the conclusions you have drawn from very poor evidence is very weak.

I have no idea what you do an a daily basis, I can only comment on what you have posted. From your posts the only conclusions I can draw is that you are not good with data.

So you’re trying to argue that lesbophobia isn’t a thing and the numerous testaments of women who have experienced it are useless? Riiight. Even though this is almost certainly documented in a paper somewhere and is already explicitely discussed by many women online about the things they’ve faced. My conclusion is, lesbophobia is real, unique to lesbians and is homophobia and sexism simultaneously. You don’t have to be a genius to extrapolate that.

You know what, I don’t care if your lack of insight tells you I’m poor with data. A PhD and numerous publications suggest quite the opposite.

But suuuure. You could be right…

Titus

I can only go with what I see. You saying you have a PhD and have published papers is like me saying I’m the Pope. It could be true, but you have to draw your conclusions from the evidence in front of you

“So you’re trying to argue that lesbophobia isn’t a thing”

No I’m not arguing that at all. I am saying that the arguments you are putting forward are weak, are not based on any empirical evidence, and that the conclusions you are drawing are not supported by your weak evidence.

If you are a PhD then I worry about academia.

Yeah, you could say that, but then you wouldn’t have previous comment content to suggest you are the Pope, do you? Hint, I do. And if you’d like to ask me about my work I’d be only to happy to oblige. We can start with… “Titus, why didn’t you manage to insert that marker gene today?”

Answer: My virus is dead and now I have to cultivate more. Great.

I’m sorry, what evidence would you like other than the self reporting of lesbians?

You shouldn’t worry about academia, pet. It’s fine, you aren’t in it.

Titus,

You are correct, I thankfully am not in Academia, I live in the real world. Unfortunately I have to rely on Academia to recruit employees. I was concerned that perhaps you were a lecturer, with the possibility of influencing some of our scientists of the future. But it is clear from your obvious lack of social skills, that is not the case as the powers that be have kept you out of the way in a lab somewhere.

Pet??? That’s pretty sad.

No, silly I lecture all the time! I tell students, particularly medical students that retrospective studies and self reporting, while they have so certain flames are invaluable in scientific scientific research. This is how we know the effects of certain things on developing cancers etc. With that in mind if you have an alternative to self reporting as a means of research of lesbophobia then I’m all ears but I warn you, following lesbians around with a camera to document the homophobia they encounter is frowned upon, legally.

*Some certain flaws

Have to agree Titus, as a card carrying lesbian I have many times been chatted up by guys while in the presence of a female date, as have many other lesbians I know. I find that if I say I have a boyfriend it is more likely to halt them in their tracks than if I say this is my girlfriend/date. If I say this is my date I tend to get asked about to prove it by kissing her or even about the possibility of a threesome! A friend was at a bar and a guy was chatting her up, he wouldn’t take no for an answer so eventually she told him she is gay, to which he responded he didn’t mind so no problem! Thankfully not all men are like that but there are more than a few who are. All the lesbians I know find it easier and more effective to say they have a boyfriend than to mention being gay!

Demise, I’ve heard this a thousand times and read it a thousand times more. I have no doubt lesbians experience this which, as I’ve said, is sexist AND homophobic. I know lesbians feel this way because when women tell me something, I believe them. Not that I don’t believe men but if more people believed women’s experiences we’d be a better society instead of having pants conviction rates for rape etc. I have to believe in addition to blogs, magazine articles etc there is good research on lesbophobia particularly with regards to heterosexual men but it’s not something I’ve looked in to in academic detail.

Titus,

Wow! You lecture medical students and you do scientific scientific research, which must be really important.
From “pet” to “silly” the little affectionate names you have for me are flattering, but I’m sorry I don’t have the same feelings for you, and your advances are unwanted.

Demise, since when did you need to carry a card to be a lesbian? Again the obvious conclusion to your anecdote(s) is that drunken men are a$$holes to women on a night out.

If a gay man chats up a straight guy who tells him that he’s straight, and the first guy keeps on chatting him up, is he then hetrophobic or is he just a drunken a$$hole?

Even PhD students research and teaching. It’s honestly not a big deal. That’s cool if you’re not down for it. Demises point and mine is that men do NO have to be drunk to act this way. It’s factually an issue that women are reporting and I don’t for the life of me see how that’s a problem for you.

Craba I know plenty of men who would never dream of speaking to a woman the way I’ve been spoken to regarding my sexuality no matter how much alcohol they have consumed. Being drunk is no excuse. I’ve had people shout fu(king dyke at me walking down the street. Why do you think it seems to be more effective to stop unwanted advances for most lesbians to say “I have a boyfriend” than to say “I am gay”?

Demise,

I am not for one second saying that there are not homophobic people out there, or that I don’t believe you have been abused in that way.

My point is very simple, and it relates back to a specific post from Titus earlier in the thread. anecdotal evidence is not reliable when making the type of conclusions that he/she was making. I don’t for one second doubt you have met with homophobic abuse. but drunk a guy chatting you up in a club,and trying to convince you that you are not a lesbian is not NECESSARILY homophobic abuse. It is far more likely to be an a$$hole who is drunk and thinks you are trying to fob him off by saying you are a lesbian. (I am not saying drink is an excuse.) Because you perceive it to be something else doesn’t NECESSARILY make it so. Therefore while I don’t deny these things have happened to you, they are not on their own, emperical evidence of homphobia.

I am expecting you now to come back at me to rip me a new one because you think I am belittling some quite unpleasent experiences you have had on nights out. I am not trying to do that. Not all ar$eholes are homophobic, some are just ar$holes

No I don’t think you are belittling my experience Craba and I get what you’re saying re them not being evidence of homophobia so much as a”"holes. I have straight friends who find it easier to say that they have a boyfriend than to say that they are not interested so I’m not sure it’s about my sexual orientation but definitely the responses I have experienced and heard of from others are disrespectful in the extreme. I am interested to hear your views on why it’s easier for a woman to say she has a boyfriend than to say that she is not interested or that she is gay?

It’s you Paddy or a clone. Why hide you gross face behind an anonymous profile. You’re a coward.

Demise,

Many young men in their 20s are driven by their hormones ( I have a vague recollection), and drink adds fuel to the fire. I would surmise that on average a woman’s attractiveness to a man is probably not dependent on her sexual orientation. All woman are in the firing line so to speak. There is probably an unwritten code not to hit on another guys girlfriend, that doesn’t exist when it comes to a some girl’s girlfriend. and if you are single well you are obviously fair game (sarcasm).

II have no doubt there are homophobes out there also who, when the get the opportunity to “set some lesbians straight”, they will take it. I would guess those guys would be pretty nasty to any straight woman who spurned them also. My own experience is that aggressive homophobes tend to be nasty people in general.

Do homosexual men get hit on by aggressive straight women looking to change them?

I don’t know re gay men and aggressive straight women, certainly I have never heard about it or come across it. Yes I tend to agree that all women appear to be in the firing line for some men who seem unable or unwilling to take no for an answer unless there is another man involved. It almost seems they see the woman as the man’s property and therefore off limits. Whereas if a woman is single they appear to think if they press her enough she will relent, which I find hard to fathom to be honest, if it’s clear someone is not into you, surely better to leave it be than keep pushing even though it’s clearly unwanted. Perhaps it also has something to do with the labels placed on females in society as sluts, there seems to be this idea that girls will say no when they are actually interested so as not to be seen as easy, so when they eventually relent, it appears as though they were interested all along but had to protest to avoid being labelled. I’m sure that’s nicer for a guy to believe than the often truer alternative that she really is not interested but relents under pressure to avoid further hassle

Two out of three voted yes!!!!

Correct. The more advances gay people make the more whiny they become. Saw two men holding hands the other day. Didn’t take a second look and neither did anybody else. We all have problems but Ireland is probably one the the best countries today to be gay in. Count your blessings as my mother used to say and stop moaning.

You’re a Professional victim Denise.

If rather say 3 out of every 4 voted yes. Stop been a pessimist, Ireland showed the way to world in voting gay marriage in, lucky ya don’t live in Russia or parts of Africa were you would be killed for been gay, their will always been some small minded people in Ireland but majority of us were happy to allow the gays have more rights and it should be applauded not nit picked at. The old expression show me a gay basher and I’ll show you a gay. Like that Orlando shooter, he didn’t do it for religion he done it cause deep down he was gay and jealous his stupid religion wouldn’t let him be who he really was. Quit your jibber jabber and be proud most of us voted yes for gay people to be allowed marry who they love

The Orlando shooter was gay?
Didn’t know that.
So why the hell does the LBTG community keep pointing the finger at straight people?

TJE And the ad hominems have begun! You don’t know me at all

@adam we dont, the regresssive il-liberal left do. Most gay people are to busy working, paying bills and living life. Its the minority. Who suck up to the sjws, the ones with very low self confidence and in psychological terms an external locus of control. Being minorities, the sjws give them first chance to whine. Lately gay men have been class as oppressive to women though. Yes, i did read that on a progressive news source. Apparently being a gay man is now “oppressive” and we benefit from “the capitalist patriarchal superstructure”

I don’t need to know you to give my opinion on your comment. Everything you said indicates your victim mentality

Demise
Just because somebody voted no in the marriage referendum doesn’t make them homophobic.
Be very very careful going down that road.
I voted No in the marriage referendum.
Let me explain.
It was a marriage referendum not an equality referendum. Let’s get that clear. Do we wish to call marriage and all the rights that go with it, as equally applicable to a same sex couple?

Do we accept that a child up for adoption has no extra right to be adopted by a married man and woman than two ‘married’ men or two ‘married’ women.

That’s where I take issue.
I believe that child should wherever possible be adopted by a man and woman.

My view does not make me homophobic.

Tom I’m not saying voting no makes someone homophobic. But being told not to forget that one of every 3 people you see voted no, as a comment definitely has a homophobic undertone to it. Especially when it comes from someone who links homosexuality to paedophilia

Mark Dolan
22 minutes ago # 1 5
If rather say 3 out of every 4 voted yes. Stop been a pessimist, Ireland showed the way to world in voting gay marriage in, lucky ya don’t live in Russia or parts of Africa were you would be killed for been gay”

Were we been a little bit PC Mark?, how come you never mentioned the middle east, or Pakistan predominately Islamic countries where been gay could see you hung from cranes or tossed from the nearest high building and if you didn’t die on impact there would be a baying mob waiting at the bottom ready to finish you off with stones, and yet for some baffling reason many in the LBGT would defend this barbaric ideology till they were blue in the face. a real head scratcher?.

Demise
Let’s be very clear here. How does voting No have homophobic undertones? Your saying by voting no doesn’t mean somebody is homophobic. Stop right there. It absolutely doesn’t. There are no ‘buts’ or undertones.
Let’s be very very clear what homophobia is. I gave very clear reasons why I voted no. My view that a child should be afforded an upbringing by a man and a woman (where possible) does not make me homophobic.

Also, associating homosexuality with paedieaphilia is clearly very wrong and should be condemned. It is not the view of probably 95% who voted no.
I can be sure of the percentage but I don’t think it’s the prevailing view.

Demise just because 1 in 3 people voted ‘no’ doesn’t mean they’re homophobic.

It was a marriage referendum not an equality referendum. Let’s get that clear.
- Yes it was.

Do we wish to call marriage and all the rights that go with it, as equally applicable to a same sex couple?
– We do. Legally, constitutionally and otherwise.

Do we accept that a child up for adoption has no extra right to be adopted by a married man and woman than two ‘married’ men or two ‘married’ women.
- Yes.

That’s where I take issue.
- We know.

I believe that child should wherever possible be adopted by a man and woman.
- Tough shít. The adoption authorities ensure that what is best for the child is the only criteria which matters regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the person/persons adopting.

My view does not make me homophobic.
- It does Why? Because adoption legislation allowing same sex couples to adopt together was being introduced anyway, regardless of the outcome of the marriage equality referendum. Nothing whatsoever at all in the Marriage Equality referendum had anything to do with adoption.

This has been explained to you *countless* times on here and I am sure as many times elsewhere.

“I gave very clear reasons why I voted no. My view that a child should be afforded an upbringing by a man and a woman (where possible) does not make me homophobic.”

But the referendum had nothing to do with children. So your clear reason is nothing to do with the vote.So you either voted no because you tyhing Straight couples deserve more rights than same sex couples or you voted no for a reason that had nothing to do with the referendum. Both reasons make you look pretty stupid.

Phil
We can bestow all the rights we like.
We can call it whatever we like, but the fact remains that 2 married men or 2 married women can NEVER be the same as a married man and woman.

They cannot reproduce. Fact.
We can dress this up any way we like but the two scenarios will always be different. Always.
Two married men can never produce a child. Sure, they can borrow a surrogate mother but now the act of reproduction has gone outside the bond of marriage. This is now a 3 way relationship.

There is no getting away from the facts.

Call it what you will but the facts remain.

Rob
Oh I’m not stupid. Don’t worry about that. The secondary effect of the referendum effects children, make no mistake.

Like the Brexit vote, there are secondary effects right through society.

Phil
We can bestow all the rights we like.
We can call it whatever we like, but the fact remains that 2 married men or 2 married women can NEVER be the same as a married man and woman.
- Legally, they are.

They cannot reproduce. Fact.
- What has that got to do with anything?

We can dress this up any way we like but the two scenarios will always be different. Always.
- Legally two married men or two married women are the same as a man married to a woman. Always.

Two married men can never produce a child.
- Again, what has that got to do with anything?

Sure, they can borrow a surrogate mother but now the act of reproduction has gone outside the bond of marriage. This is now a 3 way relationship.
- What? What are you on about surrogacy for?

There is no getting away from the facts.
Call it what you will but the facts remain.
- What facts? The fact that, as I said and as you’ve ignored, your “reason” for voting against marriage equality had nothing at all to do with marriage equality. That adoption legislation allowing same sex couples to adopt together was being introduced anyway, regardless of the outcome of the marriage equality referendum and nothing whatsoever at all in the Marriage Equality referendum had anything to do with adoption.

Rob
Oh I’m not stupid. Don’t worry about that.
- Ah now, you clearly are.

The secondary effect of the referendum effects children, make no mistake.
- There is no secondary effect to the marriage equality referendum. It doesn’t effect [sic] children. It’s already been explained to you that the legislation regarding adoption by same sex couples was en route to be enacted in law before the referendum on marriage equality and would be regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

Like the Brexit vote, there are secondary effects right through society.
- And like the Brexit vote there are ill-informed ignorant people like you who simply don’t want to accept the truth.

Phil

That was for Rob, not you.
The clue was in his name at the top of the post.

So couples who cant or dont want children arent really married and marriage is only for making babies? Straight couples also avail of surrogacy in some cases too. Aside from that, countless children have been abused by opposite sex parents so its no more ideal than same sex parents.

I’m sorry Tony, apart from your own preferences, why is this beneficial? In realistic terms now. Not hypothetical ones.

I’m going to put a pin in the studies that allude to same-sex parents being even slightly better than opposite sex parents because the scientist in me thinks this benefit might not be all that significant so I’ll settle on the statement “Children of same sex parents do as well in all areas as children of opposite sex parents”. Now if you have anything to contradict that, any piece of tangible evidence (note:evidence > your opinion) I would love to hear it.