Friday, June 06, 2008
Iris looking to ‘turn around’ gays
It was rather fitting that, in the week Brian Feeney labelled the Robinson-led DUP as the ‘Nasty Party,’ First Lady Iris lays out her views on turning around homosexuals. Iris had called for the portrayal of gay people to be banned from TV only a week earlier- when she also complained about not being able to use the term ‘coloureds.’ Ahh, for the good ol’ days Iris, eh???
Chris Donnelly @ 07:51 PM
In most other European countries she’d have resigned or the party, fearing damage, would have kicked her out but oh no, not in this place. What an ignorant and patronising proposal.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 01:51 AMPosters here are shocked that Iris Robinson believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder yet curiously they regularly label people who dislike homosexuality “homophobes” thus asserting that such people have a mental disorder.
Odd that, maybe people could try grasping the concept that other people who have opinions or sexual preferences that they don’t share are actually normal people who are perfectly entitled to their point of view.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 02:45 AMHarry.
I think you’re being a little disingenuous. People aren’t saying someone doesn’t have the right to be opposed to certain sexual practices, it’s the idea of promoting an agenda which creates an atmosphere of hate towards those who have a different approach to sexual practices.
If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t practice it.
Using a public platform to claim people are an abomination, when those self same people are being beaten and attacked, that’s what we find objectionable.Similarily, people are perfectly free to believe what they wish about the different races, but we have laws prohibiting the dissemination of views which can reasobaly be judged to lead to attacks or discrimination against those of different race.
I hate racists and racism, this doesn’t mean I’m just the same as those who hate on the basis of race.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 02:54 AMSuch a load of hypocritical hogwash! Well done Iris for speaking up against the Christianaphobes and Gay Facists!
We all discriminate against people’s personal behaviour no matter if results in personal violence directed at times to them. Polygamy, Bestiality and Paedophilia are lambasted as beyond the norm for even most of the Guardianistas here yet the same logic could be applied to those that opoose these abominations as sodomy which is not a perversion but an inversion!!
Many here support abortion at 10 weeks but how many of those recoil at tearing a baby apart by surgical implements at 40 weeks? Surely that is discriminatory to a mother having a right to choose? After all it is still just a foetus?
The truth is that for centuries our countries succeeded in the West when we had civilisations based on strong families, no open sodomy, pro-marriage laws etc - Now we have a collapsing moral structure where families are imploding, divorce is rampant and gay pride is all that matters.
Oh well...I suppose we will all just have to wait until we become an Islamic State to sort out some of these stupidities and see Abu Hamza and Co stone to death Stonewall activists...surely we cannot be against that as that would be… Islamaphobia
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 04:44 AMSHanna: The truth is that for centuries our countries succeeded in the West when we had civilisations based on strong families, no open sodomy, pro-marriage laws etc
If it is the truth, then please be more precise about when this golden age was. Wars, civil strife, revolutions, insurrections, and violent social and political change have been going on fairly regularly in the West since time immemorial, whatever the family structures have been. Family stability is a good thing, but this is merely nostalgia for a non-existent past. This seems to be something that Iris also has been suffering from, from listening to her on Nolan.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 06:40 AM“#
I always thought that Iris dressed a little bit raunchy most times, maybe even tarty, roaring red lipstick, heavy mascara and eye shadow, etc”
Obviously this lady is for turning ... .
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 07:24 AM“People say, ‘can you really imagine the United States of America having a black President?’
And I say, ‘why not? They just had a retarded one.’Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 07:33 AMSHanna writes: “Polygamy, Bestiality and Paedophilia are lambasted as beyond the norm for even most of the Guardianistas here yet the same logic could be applied to those that opoose these abominations as sodomy which is not a perversion but an inversion!! “
Let’s ignore the fact that sodomy is a practice of homos hetros and bi’s, and is therefore not really the reason homosexuals offend you. You directly compare sodomy with paedophilia, which is beyond offensive, especially to those children whose lives are destroyed on a daily basis. Bestiality is more interesting; frankly, I couldn’t give a rats arse if someone gets aroused by animals, as long as no animals are harmed.... the subject of whether a cow would rather be f****ed than served up as a steak, can be put aside for now. The issue of polygamy is a more complex one and is probably illegal because of the coercive nature of common examples and because of its proximity to bigamy.
Frankly, I can’t think that a sane person would argue thus without first being indoctrinated by fanatics, adhering to the pronouncements of long dead writers, who can be forgiven, because they didn’t have access to better information.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 07:57 AMWhoops, I shouldn’t have used the term “rat’s arse” to describe my feelings, should I?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 08:03 AMPerhaps someone should ask Iris as the DUP’s leading light on health issues just what structures she would put in place to address the issue if she was health minister. would psychologists employed to help ‘gay’ people turn be a priority for the health service.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 08:11 AMSodomy is also practiced by married heterosexuals. Gays don’t have a monopoly on kinky sex. The worry I have is not that Iris has her own opinions, but that she doesn’t recognise the privilege of her position, nor the damage she can do. Psychiatrists turning gays tend to focus on people who are messed up and end up more messed up as a result of intervention which tries to make them something they are not.
As a heterosexual in a stable partnership, I can’t say that gay pride is ‘all that matters’ or that I am threatened by it. Similarly I’m not particularly threatened by Christianity (unless it’s used to try to withdraw teaching evolution in science classes.)
If she were to take the health portfolio, I’d like to see what action she takes on domestic violence. Maybe people who do that sort of thing could be turned with the help of a good psychiatrist as well.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 08:40 AMPage 2, post 16, can the mods tell me what the problem was?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 08:43 AMI am utterly fed up with people abusing the term “Faith” to cover their hideous contempt for marginalized groups whose only collective offence is being different.
This is nothing to do with “Faith”, it is to do with a lack of common sense and human decency.
People are entitled to their own moral code, within the law. They are not entitled to enforce it on others, nor to abuse it for the sake of promoting marginalization (and thus, inevitably, hatred).
Let’s just be thankful this society is actually more progressive than its political leaders, or we’d all be on the next boat.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 09:10 AMIsn’t it buggery when it’s a man and a woman rather than sodomy? Iris as health minister. That would be a laugh. Except when you are sick.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 09:11 AMI think she could make a case that homosexuality is a basis for a personality disorder if she separated homosexuals into groups based on their respective behaviour patterns. For example, camp stereotypes (represented on TV by Graham Norton, Julian Clary, etc) do have shared traits that allow them to be defined and recognised as a group, some of which transcend cultural influences and neurotic traits such as insecurity, vanity, bitchiness, gossiping, etc, and include physical affectations such as a style of walking and a physical alteration of their voice all speak with a similar affected pitch/accent. These people exist in reality, and they exist with a set of behaviour patterns that is distinct from their homosexuality even though it is derived from it.
So, perhaps behaviour patterns can be modified when they are based on cultural influences but homosexuality cannot. Homosexuality is abnormal behaviour by definition, so there really isn’t any point in pretending the majority will not find deviations from the norm abhorrent to them. That is inbuilt into humans, and it is why we recoil from facial disfigurement and find beauty in perfect order.
The fact that 1 in 20 of the population is homosexual simply means that society should accept that a minority have a disposition that they don’t share and may feel repelled by, but that it isn’t right to subject others to disadvantage based on that disposition. That doesn’t mean that human nature can be reformed to no longer recoil from abnormality just as it can’t be reformed to no longer be homosexual. It just means the two groups will have to compromise. This is where homosexuals who insist that there disposition is not abnormal and insist that others have no right to recoil from it do not further their cause but simply retard it.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 09:22 AMThe right to freedom of expression is inalienable. To exercise that right in the way our first lady MP, MLA did, in light of the vicious attack on Stephen Scott, is irresponsible.
Let’s be clear though - Iris Robinson is not asking for more freedom of expression. In calling for homosexuality not to be represented in the media, in appealing to a mythical moral majority, she seeks regression in equality legislation to reflect her own fundamentalist values.
She is bound by the following:
“Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the electorate and the community as a whole”
Her remarks do not sit comfortably this duty, shall we say.
Her refusal to meet Gay Rights groups was because she ‘didn’t need to put her hand in the fire to get burned.’ Has sexual orientation become infectious? Or is this an irrational fear?
She has a husband who could, faced with weak opposition, deliver her wishes - the OFMDFM is responsible for equality and human rights legislation. He needs to assure the “whole community” that he neither shares his wife’s views nor agrees with her timing, and that he is committed to the promotion of the rights of the gay community.
Further, while I appreciate the legal risks Slugger O’Toole exposes itself to, and without financial compensation, I would submit that the DUP’s litigious reputation has silenced legitimate disagreement in public fora before. Their voters need to understand this clearly. These online fora are an important place for this suppressed conversation, and I would urge this site to permit the wide range of opinion evident on most of its threads.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 09:41 AMIts a bit of a pity that there isn’t a single openly gay elected representative that was able to challenge Robinson’s views in that arena. The lack of such people at the highest levels of politics seems to indicate that glass ceilings rather than open contempt may be in place across other political parties. As for the coloured remark that could have been best countered by Anna Lo asking would she want to call her ‘chink’ or ‘slitty eyes’ and if she did she could go feck herself. Countering these backward opinions always seems to have weight if it does done by members of the victimised group in addition to others, for example the representative of the Rainbow project offering to meet Robinson and talk it through demonstrated who seemed more balanced and who in need of counseling.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:02 AMJust listened to it on the BBC site. I think Peter will be an unhappy bunny that in the week of his long-awaited coronation, batty Iris steals his thunder.
I’m sure that this was an unintentional misjudgment on her part. After all, what has she got to get even with Peter about?Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:10 AM“The right to freedom of expression is inalienable.”
Actually, it’s a qualified right wherever it is stipulated.
The right of Mick Fealty to retain ownership of his assets takes precedence over the right of others to vent their spleens at those who displease them via this forum. ;)
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:15 AMIts a disgrace that an elected representative can come out with this sort of comment and then hide behind it as a personal opinion.
She should resign plain and simple. There is no room in our society for this sort of flat earth hocus pocus.
Can the equality commission perhaps bring their own legal action against she who has a sports hall named after her?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:25 AMIs this some kind of coincidence but when I looked up this thread today, there was a banner advertising “Gay chubby dating”, has anyone let Iris know?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:27 AMWhat I find difficult is that if you say something that liberals and Gays dont like you are the worst in the world you are not allowed an opinion however if it is a gay person they can say what they like about a hetrosexual person and they are allowed to get away with it, everybody has a right to an opinion and to state it, political correctness has gone to far and Mrs Robinson has had the guts to say something that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland privately agree with!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:35 AM@ truth and justice
so the vast majority of people in NI are bigotted feckwits believing in intolerance then?
hmmm
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:39 AMThis is serious stuff. How do we get her out of office? Has anyone broken the news to her that there are 22 major religions in the world. Is her god going to beat the other 21? How does she know this. Oh yeah she’s got a 2000 year old book. I can’t wait to book tickets in the Odyssey for the “Adulterer Stoning”, her new fashion weekly magazine on not to wear clohes made from two different fabrics and her long awaited cookery book “God will get u if you eat Pork” and the sequel “Shellfish - the abomination” Yes like all the so called Christians she picks and chooses the word of her god as she pleases.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:44 AMIris please have a duke at this and advise. I’m not sure if you are as up to speed on religious doctrine as you are in psychiatry, but give it your best shot before you head out shopping on expenses this afternoon. Thanks luv. Ps the nightwalker red lippy really suits you.
- When I burn a bull on the altar of sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. they claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I would like to sell my future children into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, I’m concerned as to what would be a fair price for them?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24) The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
- Levicitus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided that they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Why can’t I own Canadians?
- I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
- A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t disagree. Can this be settled on Monday’s Nolan?
- Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I do have to admit that I wear glasses from time to time. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
- Most of the guys I know get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does my aunt by wearing garments made of two different kinds of threads (cotton & polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of rallying the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?
- Couldn’t we just burn them to death in a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know the religious right has studied these things extensively, so I know they can help with these questions. Thank you CDUP Christian Democratic Unionist Party for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging… Especially when it comes to gays.
Always remember Iris, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, simply remind them that Levicitus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2008 @ 10:51 AM
