Wednesday, May 30, 2007
DUP Minister for Gay Equality voices homosexual hatred…
AFTER one DUP minister spent most of the day lecturing other parties that they were in breach of the ministerial code, another DUP minister appears to be in breach of, um, the ministerial code. Junior Minister, Paisley Junior, says he’s “repulsed” by gays and added: “I think it is wrong. I think that those people harm themselves and - without caring about it - harm society.” As part of his daddy’s office, Junior is partly responsible for delivering equality - as well as £180,000 grant aid to gay, lesbian and bisexual support groups - and his Pledge of Office includes a commitment to “act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination”, while the Code obliges him to “operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment”. Paisley Minor is entitled to his views, but as a minister isn’t he bound by a code that requires him to keep the prejudiced, bigoted or sectarian ones to himself?
Belfast Gonzo @ 04:52 PM
So gay people don’t “repulse him” what they do does? What is the difference here. I don’t hate Homophobes I am repulsed when they breathe my good oxygen.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 08:39 PMDoes Ian Paisley Jnr also find former terrorists repulsive? Does he hate what they did, not the person?
It seems he has been very quick to condemn gay people but not so slow to condemn his new partners in government (Sinn Fein), previously sworn enemies.
Strange priorities.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 08:51 PMUnsurprising nonsense from a Paisley and his homophobic apologists.
Journalists should continue to ask these awkward questions that highlight the bigotry of our elected representatives.
I also hear that Jim Alister has asked Paisley Snr to clarify his position on European equality law. It looks like its getting tougher for the DUPers to square their personal prejudices with their new place in the establishment.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 08:53 PMInterestingly, no really, last week Hot Press revealed what GerryA has on his iPod..
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 08:55 PMHow can Gerry afford an i-Pod on an industrial wage?
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:00 PM“Is that because you have uncontrollable lusts towards absolutely every female or something?”
Well, there are some munters about.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:06 PM“The only man who could ever love me...was the Son of a Preacher Man”
Yes he was.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:06 PMAs I said Pete, asking the tough questions…
Does Bomb The Bass feature on the i-pod? Suspect Device? (Sorry.)
http://music.guardian.co.uk/readersrecommend/story/0,,1943341,00.html
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:07 PMWell, I have to say that young Ian pretty much repulses me BUT.....he has a point!
Why shouldn’t he express his views on homosexuality when asked about it in an interview? All this nonsense about a conflict with his pledge of office would make a little more sense if we didn’t have an IRA commander as Deputy First Minister, an organisation which has actually murdered thousands and maimed tens of thousands, thus exposing Bomber Anderson’s faux concern about Baby Doc’s comments “feeding into the attitudes that fester and lead to homophobic violence.” Is it now mandatory to love homosexuality? Wonder if Islam has some wise words for us on the subject?
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:14 PMI agree with Sammy Morse and other contributors. It’s worth pointing out however that Baby Doc may have had more political aims when he made his comments. The Free Presbyterian Church itself may split on precisely this issue. Listen to Ivan Foster’s sermon preached last Sunday ("Whither Free Presbyterianism?") which denounces Paisley roundly and centres on this question. It’s 70 odd minutes long but he comes back to it again and again.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5270717832
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:22 PMIt’s not manditory to support gay’s hoever Mini me is a politician and has to know that any comment he makes is under scrutiny, as it should be for any elected representative. No Comment would have been the smart answer, but we all know smart is not what Son of Dr No does best.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:22 PMWhat is fascinating is how extreme unionist ideology is impervious to external fashions and pressures. SF ditched Catholicism then adopted Marxism because it suited them at the time and are presumably about to drop whatever trappings remain after the election. The other fascinating thing is how young unionist admire someone like Paisley/s who would not command support anywhere else in western europe. The comfort to the gay community must be that all reasonable people will see this outburst as pure bigotry.
It must also be galling for moderate unionists ( and I suspect pleasing for many Nationalists) that the DUP have supplanted the UU and can only damage the Unionist cause by giving vent to opinions which reflect very badly on it.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:27 PMDavid, of course it isn’t “mandatory to love homosexuality”, but Gonzo’s point remains. Members of the executive have signed up to promoting equality and community relations. At the very least there is an uneasy relationship between Junior’s language and this important responsibility.
Your point about Islam is irrelevant to this debate. Whilst freedom of speech on the issue should of course be maintained, bigotry should be challenged regardless of where it emerges from. If you are arguing that too often liberals point out Christian bigotry while ignoring Islamic attitudes I think you have a point.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:34 PMToken Dissent,
On the substance of Gonzo’s point, the Deputy First Minister should resign forthwith. IRA membership is incompatible with the “oath” these clowns take.
I do agree that Baby Doc is clumsy, vain, semi-incoherent and the rest, but perhaps you raise an interesting question. Is it possible to hold Biblical values and office in the Assembly? Maybe making it god-free is only institutionalising what many of us suspect about this assembly of fools?
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:48 PMDavid V
Why shouldn’t he express his views on homosexuality when asked about it in an interview?
Because he said he wouldn’t? He basically censored himself through signing up to the ministerial code.
Baby Doc made a promise. He didn’t keep it. I’m surprised you’re surprised at what is now a DUP habit!
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:49 PM‘It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it’ - you make very strong points. The picture that unionism presents to the world is once more narrow, exclusivist, out-dated and fearful. Its not exactly the positive inclusive British identity needed for the 21st century…
The SDLP and SF have been far more successful in leading a liberalisation of debate on homosexuality, despite the Cathoilic community also being divided on the issue. I would suggest that unionist politicans - especially the DUP - are behind their electorate on the issue.
PS, Sylvia Hermon and others have taken a progressive stance.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:49 PMHomophobia has its roots in Judeo-Christian theology. As far as I am concerned as a homosexual, I am this way because of my genes. I will not take lectures from religious hypocrites. Live and let live.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:53 PMSam Hanna who are you to judge whether homosexual acts are unnatural or not? Religious social conservatives traditionally argue that only heterosexual acts can be “natural” because they produce childern. If that is true, does this mean that heterosexual partners are engaging in “unnatural” activities? The survival of the human race depends not just on reproduction, but also on preventing overpopulation - and that is what I regard as being nature’s purpose in making some people gay.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 09:57 PMDavid, some of us might argue that a God free assembly wouldn’t be a bad thing! But surely you must acknowledge that many people hold Biblical values AND a tolerant view on matters of sexuality.
The more specific point about the compatability of holding fundamentalist views, of thew elk of the Free Ps, and holding office is debatable. For example can Poots possibly be capable of fulfilling his duties without compromising his beliefs? I guess in the past with issues such as Sunday opening of playgrounds and leisure centres the DUPers have squared the circle.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:00 PMYou would think from the rants here that Jr had asked for all sodomites to be burned at the stake. It is interesting the Press never attack SF for the Protestantphobia in murdering 3,000 of us simply because we were born in a diffrent faith from them. Why do they not hound the Catholic Church who to this day will excommunicate you for having an abortion but not for murdering a Protestant.
Ian Paisley never signed up to fawning over sodomites - he signed up to outlaw discrimination. One view of discrimination is stopping free speech to say a man with another man is repulsive. Another is to say the stopping of your right to walk down the Gravaghy Road from your church if your culture is Orange is discrimination.
I would like to know why Sodomites are getting hundreds of thousands of tax payers money for theri parades when Free Presbyterian Schools get nothing - they are a discriminated minority but I don’t see the BBC running around getting quotes from nationalist politicans.
The majority of unionists despise and are repulsed by men committing unnatural acts with other men. If you cannot live with this, then go find another corner of Europe that you are.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:04 PMthere are many many people who are repulsed by homosexuality, afterall screwing the anal passage of another man just aint natural!
the only intolerant people here are the ones who say Ian jr cant hold a particular view. McGuinness supports a united ireland and fought a sectarian terrorist campaign on protestants to achieve it but no one is calling for him to step down
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:06 PMas regards all the shite talked about equality, can anyone point out to one law or one right that Ian jr has said should NOT apply to homos ?
didnt thinks so, nuff said
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:10 PMJust Rite says
“there are many many people who are repulsed by homosexuality, afterall screwing the anal passage of another man just aint natural!”persumably you lot have difficulty with oral sex ( between any conbination of the sexes ) as well or does the arse have some sort of religous signifcance to Non Iron fundamentalists?
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:17 PMDavid V:
Paisley is entitled to make whatever comment he wishes, but there is an issue if it comes to the possibility that his office may run the risk of breaching human rights legislation. Biblical values do not enter into it, provided they are legal it is no problem. Most sensible people, including people who are religious conservatives, freely accept the need to main separation between church and state. This means that you keep your religious views to yourself.
I’m sure there are people on the nationalist benches with Catholic viewpoints who probably think, or have constituents who think, that Protestants are generally wrong and they’re doing harm to society, what with all their abortion, divorce, contraception and other ungodly things. It’s quite correct that such biblical viewpoints are kept out of politics here.
To the subject itself, it’s a funny thing about homophobes, the way they obsess themselves bum fun, even though loads of hetrosexual people get their kicks off it as well.
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:18 PM‘Orange Culture’ ????
dressing up in funny hats.....
marching through catholic areas........
getting pissed...........
beating up some taigs........
chinese takeaway.........er...that’s it
Posted by on May 30, 2007 @ 10:24 PM
