Hi, yes really…http://www.independent.ie/national-news/capitals-murder-rate-one-of-the-highest-in-europe-1806545.html

Could you find me Koln crime rate please

dieter r ur friends members of the imf thats probably why they were scared

The IMF and EU own you because you are addicted to voting yes in treaties. Nobody asked you to buy big expensive over priced houses, 2 cars and have 3 holidays a year

Get a life dieter. Ur no more German than I am.

I’m afraid I have to agree with Dieter on this one…..a lot (not all) of Irish lived beyond their means (remember RTE filming the Irish at the airport with empty suitcases on the way to shop in New York)
A lot of Europeans are not obsessed with owning property & only spend what they can afford….when the tide goes out you can see who is swimming in the nude !!

We prefer to rent and use our disposable income on life, not throwing it away to a bank for the 40 years. I remember see newspapers in Germany of Irish people waiting in lines overnight to buy houses…very funny for us to see that

@Dieter Youre still paying rent when you’re 65 and have no tangable assets to pass to your children, doesnt make economic sence to me

With all due respect, for me it makes more sense than paying three times the value of your house to the bank for 40 yrs…for bricks and a small space, not to mention maintenance costs over that period. As for leaving something behind, it will be a lifestyle and memories for my children they wouldn’t have enjoyed if I had been crippled with debt for 4o yrs. With the money I have saved, they are afforded a wonderful life and education that will allow them good jobs….they don’t need to purchase a house, they can rent too, that’s what we do…rent and live

Just a few small points:
1. With a mortgage, its over 25 to 35 years, exaggerating to 40 just makes you look ill informed
2. The payback on a mortgage is usually 3 times the value when bought, im currently paying 1100 euro/month, when im 55ish the mortgage will nearly be paid, i’ll still be paying 1100 euro/month and your rent will be 3500/month as inflation moves rent up.
3. In Ireland rent is on a par with mortgage costs, higher in some cases now that its harder to get mortgages and people are not buying but renting. so its makes more sense to me to put my money in an asset than a landlords pocket (just for the record they dont become landlords to help people, its for profit ie. to profit from you)
4. My standard of living is very good, i eat well, socialise regularly and enjoy regular trips abroad like most sensible people and still manage to put a bit aside for those rainy days and im not on an extremely high wage.

In conclusion… cop yourself on Dieter

You aren’t making any sense to me. Ok, so Ireland is right and the rest of Europe and myself is wrong….yeah, so I see ;)

Leave dieter the dub alone and don’t be educating him. We need renters to pay our mortgages and fund our retirements

You need renters to pay for your houses because you have to live with your mothers again, houses that are now worth half of what you paid for them, they will never see their original value again, yet you still have to pay the bank. I drive around and I see lines of people on unemployment, people in tv and radio crying about how they cant pay for house, crying about house prices dropping, the recession…and here are you deluded Irish telling me that buying a house is a great idea. I couldn’t make this up. Keep your debt you crazy people, Ill live and enjoy life lol

That’s right dieter. Well I can only speak for myself but my renters are paying for my investment properties, my car loan and also my own residence is mortgage free thanks to the equity from my investment properties. So thank you and keep it up please. :)

Now he is pretending to be a successful property investor in Ireland lol Its like talking to kids…You people are absolutely hilarious, mad isnt even close…terrifyingly ignorant and oblivious to reality :O

“The Foreigners took all our jobs”…”Gays are not normal” Same ignorant Irish way of thinking I have heard here many many times, its embarrassing, its 2011 ireland :(

hush now, Dieter, the adults are trying to talk

Why would you refer to yourself as an ‘adult’? That’s so cute lol

I work in Old Spitalfields Market, London where I see gay couples going about their lives as is their right but in some parts of London the same cannot be said. I am sorry Ireland is not the only country with homophobia. I cannot imagine a world where we all accept each other but one can hope!

Dieter YOU seem to be the most ignorant and bigoted person on this thread. You have turned a discussion on homophobia in Ireland into an anti-Irish tirade. I didn’t think German ever people stereotyped other races…..oh wait.

Why am I ignorant a bigot? Could you tell me precisely what I said that was incorrect? I am not anti Irish…I said Ireland is a dangerous country, it seems to be. I also mentioned that you sold out to the EU and IMF. I also suggested a nice guy above was drunk because of what he wrote, he corrected me and assured me he was sober. Where do you see ignorance and bigotry there? If you are going to use either of those words at least try looking them up in a dictionary first, I am not even fluent in your language yet I understand more than you.

I do not use words unless I understand them. You have constantly stereotyped Irish people in your tirades for example “same ignorant Irish way of thinking”. I was not aware that you are able to discern what “the Irish way of thinking”, that does not make sense to me. Individuals have opinions, yes they may be shaped by foundational cultural norms but ultimately a persons race has no nothing to do with their opinions. For example you refer to “Irish” people voting yes to treaties without reference to the fact many Irish people voted against it. I as an Irish person do not believe “foreigners took all our jobs” or that “Gays are not normal” yet you label those opinions as “Irish”.

Well yes, I happen to think a lot of Irish thinking is ignorant, I also believe that is is the “same ignorant Irish way of thinking”. You are writing nonsense and your retort did nothing to explain as to why I am a bigot. Once again you demonstrated you didn’t understand the words you used to describe me..bye bye

Your comparison to racism is erroneous, being black is not a choice.

Oak. Neither is being gay you clown. I’m assuming being a clown is your choice. Apologies if you were born a clown.

Oaklane1′s assertion that being gay is a choice says more about him/her. If you’re straight and you believe sexuality is a choice, it follows that for you, homosexuality was a viable option but that you “chose” and continue to “choose” heterosexuality. From which it’s fair to deduce that you, at least from time to time, have homosexual leanings yourself. Homophobes can’t have it both ways. Sexuality is either a choice for everyone or it’s a hard wired state over which we’ve no control. Most people will tell you that in their experience, it’s definitely the latter.

Oaks just an internet troll! Ignore his/her/it’s comments!

Maybe a troll alright but don’t really think so Tony. But there could be a lot of truth in what Mark said. Bisexuality does exist so for some it could be a choice, just as choosing to be a clown. Interesting. I’ll certainly use Mark’s theory in future when dealing with macho homophobes. I’ll accredit it to Mark Downes of course.

Mark, I agree with you, that if sexuality is a choice I choose heterosexuality, it is the natural way. But then you jump to the conclusion that I am a homophobe,that is just not right and where you start name calling to win

you argument, just like Tony and Reada.

The existence of bisexuality does not prove that sexuality is a choice. That is a logical and scientific fallacy.

I agree with you, Mike. You have articulated my experience and opinion very well! Homophobia is rampant and strangely, especially in heterosexual men, towards gay men. Are they scared their heterosexual manhood is somehow compromised? Telling your kids not to use the word “gay” in a derogatory way towards anyone & reminding them, will spare so many gay young people within their peer group so much pain. And parents, remember, if your child is gay and hasn’t come out to you & is suffering because of that, saying you support the right of gay people to their homosexuality in general, may just make you beloved child’s life a thousand times easier.

That’s either one lousy bouncer, there’s more to the story or it’s total bullshit. Seeing as how Pantibar is the only gay bar on Capel St. I suggest you take it up with them as I have never ever had a problem with the staff there, neither have any I my hetero friends. And I’m sorry but one incidence of a bouncer being a dork does not level the playing field.

After living in the US for half a decade I have safely say I think Irish people are far more open minded and accepting than they are given credit for. The ignorance you see here on race, immigrants, gays is something else.

Sure there is still homophobia and it sucks, but where Ireland was 15 years ago to where it is today is really remarkable.

@Ian Gill

I take your overall point but I wouldn’t congratulate ourselves for being better than America on this issue. In the so-called “land of the free”, authorities in some (Republican controlled) states offically sanction homophobia and seem to operate on the basis that being gay is still illegal. Indeed some states retain sodomy laws on their books and try to enforce them, despite the Supreme Court striking down such laws in 2003! Beyond the generally progressive North East and West Coast, much of the country operates on the basis of a christian theocracy.

Oh come on, this is bollocks. If you were in England and you were called Paddy or a mick, it might hurt because you are the minority and feel isolated. Your out in dublin, you meet an english person who says the same thing you laugh at him and tell him to fuck off.

Same goes for the gay issue. They are a small minority, and are further marginalised by homophobic bullying. I really don’t think there are any straight people in this country who’l lose a nights sleep over being refused into a gay club.

This is a complete false equivalency, without even mentioning the fact that gay people have been subjected to violence, threats and slurs, something which would not happen to a straight person..

Yes of course and we are too stupid to realise. Thanks for the heads up.

its genuinely like saying you’ve never witnessed sexism, completely ridiculous. every day someone is replacing the words crap/stupid/boring/ineffectual with the word ‘gay’ – thats homophobic bullying

Hi Frank, for that very reason I voted “I don’t know”. As I’m not gay, I don’t know what a gay person might find offensive, beyond the obvious (obviously). Also IMO it’s not like there’s a single gay type (or straight or anything else for that matter) so what 1 person might find offensive, another might not.

I’d like to know if the level of private conversations about better to rent/buy or the conversations about safety in cities would be considered offensive to gay people as they’re posted in a thread that is a poll about homophobia??? :-)

Probably bullying a person for being a homosexual?! I’ve never seen homophobic bullying but I’ve but seen plenty of homophobia so I don’t doubt it goes on. Personally I say things ‘are gay’ fairly often but none of the gay people I know have ever been upset by it but now I’m thinking how many people have I offended without realizing it? How many strangers overheard me and got upset without me realising? Or worse, how many people who genuinely hate homosexuals overheard and smiled?!

Homophobic bullying is so prevalent , it is considered “normal”.

What class of a stupid comment is this? If anything a non-Irish persons comment is more valid. Broader experience beyond life in Ireland, fresh pair of eyes etc. What’s your point here?

Well, I’m not Irish, and agent Provocateur, Dieter, up there was getting a fair bit of stick before he lost his blob. But thanks for your observation and support. Maybe you missed the irony…

Every time I comment I am told by an Irish person “Go home if you don’t like it here” or the other one “Nobody forced you to stay here” It is a very strange country sometimes, people here are funny but I like it

What?! That’s child abuse that is – confusing your children as to their true sexual identity! How dare you?! I’m calling your priest straight away!

I joke

I’m in my 30s & grew up in an age where it was preached that homosexuality was wrong – part of me feels it is unnatural but I realise that I should not project that opinion to my kids. I can’t help the way I feel & I would never make gay jokes/jibes & promote tolerance & acceptance of all people to my kids. The same way gay people are entitled to live their lives as they wish I too am entitled to have my opinions.

@ Easygoing… You cant truly fully accept gay people if you believe Marriage is only for a man and a woman… The “equivilent to marriage” for a gay couple is….guess what?… Its called Marriage also!!

@ Michael…I agree….it’s my opinion which I’m entitled to hold….I think there should be an equivalent ceremony legally but it’s my view that marriage is for man & women… I don’t believe that having that opinion makes me homophobic….I know people don’t choose to be gay….it’s who they are….I’ve two close family members who are gay & were able to come out very young & were accepted warmly as it should be !

“yes it is normal for gay people but it’s hard for straight people to see that as we think straight !” Gee. Those gays are clearly better evolved mentally if they can accept us straight-thinking straights even while they’re busy being gay-thinking. Patronising much? As for the “separate ceremony” thing – there is one, called Civil Partnership. It is not equal to marriage. You’re not homophobic but you believe that a lesser institution is enough for gay people? Why?

I dont know- retards choice

Bit of a drama queen, very dangerous??? Haven lived here all of my life a fail to see the very dangerous country you are referring to.

Yeah, I’m sure people have never been senselessly beaten on the streets of Germany..

I’ve lived my whole life here too, and agree that in some parts it’s quite dangerous at night.

I read recently that Dublin is one of the most dangerous cities in Europe

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/capitals-murder-rate-one-of-the-highest-in-europe-1806545.html

I read somewhere that Elvis is living in Thailand and works weekends in a Karaoke bar. Must be true.

What has official crime statistics got to do with a dead singer, are you drunk?

@ DieterM Your “link” is 2 years old and clearly states that the majority of homicides are gang related. This is common in every major capital across the world. Criminal gangs kill each other. Here is a more recent list of the top 10 safest countries in the WORLD! Ireland is 4th and this link is from 2010. http://www.tourism-review.com/top-10-safest-countries-in-the-world-news2185

Well mate you did read that Ireland was a very dangerous place so the point I was making was just cause you read it, don’t make it true.
Is being drunk a reference to being Irish too? All drunk, homophobic, thugs. :) Have a good Christmas

I’m not your mate, I asked were you drunk because you made a reference to a dead singer in Thailand…Ireland is a very dangerous country, most of my friends are terrified to walk at night. The streets are full of junkies and guys with hoods, no police anywhere, street fights, every time I pick up a newspaper someone has been knifed or shot. You are deluded if you think Ireland’s a safe country. Get your heads out of the sand and ask foreigners how safe your country is. By the way, Ive never seen such a small island that is so dangerous, 4 million people and you have more gangland murders than every other European country

Happy Christmas to you too Gary :)

Happy Christmas to you too Gary :))

No one is asking you to stay here DieterM …….

Very aggressive Dieter. Did Santa not come??
I never said it was safe I disagreed with the fact you think it’s Very Dangerous. Streets full of junkies, street fights and no police. Are you sure you aren’t watching a movie?
Now go have some turkey and ask some one for a hug MATE :)

The usual stupid ignorant “Nobody asked you to stay here foreigner”..people like you ruin the country. Like me saying after you’re afraid to walk down the street abroad on a holiday “nobody asks you to travel abroad either on a holiday” Don’t be the stupid Irish stereotype, please

I was in Finglas recently…perhaps you should take a walk through there Gary, then down along the river in Dublin or through the park :)

Better still, walk down through Dublins main street at 3 am, see how many people look terrified of all the dangerous people hanging around…it looks like a war zone

Oh and yes Santa came to me, he came to every German person. He gave to us…Ireland, people who gives us money they dont even owe us and are very polite about it. Thank you Irish :D

Did that on a regular basis Dieter. Lived in Finglas West and often had no option but to walk from town to home on a Saturday night. Anyway, I bored with this now. Sorry you feel so unsafe in my city.

Wow! And you are still alive, with all your limbs intact :O…You are truly a Irish Christmas Miracle Gary. Happy New Year :)

@DieterM – Your idea of utopia?

http://www.tvleak.com/2011/oktoberfest-drunks/

@DieterM. Why are you desperately trying to put a point across when my point was merely to inform you that German feces smells exactly the same as the rest of Europe?

It may serve you better to realise that when people state that you don’t need to stick around if you dislike the place so much that they are merely informing you that you have options as It must be a terrible life to have to be living somewhere that frightens you so much.

Try to enjoy the rest of the holidays if you can.

” if you dislike the place so much that they are merely informing you that you have options ” like the one we all hear everywhere “If you dont like it foreigner leave”…so immature but cute :) Ireland is a very dangerous country, but it doesnt scare me so much as you tell. I dont be on streets at night, I dont go to pubs…did I see lots of stabbings this weekend everywhere in Ireland, small island of 4 million people

Happy Christmas to you also Michael, and New Year :) Keep safe :)

yup – replacing a negative word with a term that describes any minority would be discriminatory towards that minority.

OMG – that homework is so ginger
OMG – that homework is so female
OMG – that homework is so black

I’d qualify this with saying that many people don’t realise that it is homophobic, and would never consider themselves homophobic for doing so – there is often (in fact most of the time) no malice, people simply don’t think about it. But language is a very important part of life, and by just checking our language every so often, we can all do our bit to create a more inclusive society. It is our duty to think about the impact our words have on other people.

I said it by accident to my gay friends American boyfriend when we were down the pub about something that happened and he was freaked. As someone said above it was the way we were brought up speaking and it still comes out the odd time (especially with a few pints on board).

I wouldn’t think so but you can be sure you will be called it.

I guess that depends on how you justify your answer.

No but it’s quite ignorant, who are any of us to deny another person to do what ever they want as long as it doesn’t affect us?

Homophobia, along with other types pf bigotry, is generally culturally learned and often viscerally felt. Overcoming it requires effort, and above all, a willingness to question what investments are behind the attitudes.

One thing that may preclude comfort with the idea of gay marriage is the belief that marriage is fundamentally and necessarily unequal, that the roles of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are not interchangeable. Or that there must be someone in every marriage to ‘wear the trousers.’

So, yes, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic, but it is also sexist and anti-egalitarian. Overcoming such opposition may require deep questioning as to one’s real commitment to treating every human being as equally valuable, not the easiest task for most of us, reared as we are to the unreflective life.

The question is why would anyone think that gay couples should be allowed civil partnerships and not full marriage?

Marriage is an issue for the State not religion. Most objections to gay marriage are on religious grounds (directly or indirectly). The Catholic Church has entwined itself so closely with the Irish State that we sometimes forget that religion should have no say whatsoever.

The State gives couples all the legal benefits of marriage; the Church just offers a symbolic blessing.

I wouldn’t say someone with your views is a homophobe, just poorly informed. Why not just offer full marriage?

For those who are OK with civil partnerships for same-sex couples but not OK with ‘gay marriage’ a.k.a marriage equality, have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZU-HQ_c8bg

Another very moving ad, this time from Australia – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY

@Sean Higgins,

With all due respect, being turned away from one of the few bars in Dublin that cater to the gay community is not on a par with people being verbally or physically abused for being LGBT or denied the kind of legal rights that heterosexuals take for granted.

This is not “reverse discrimination” as you call it. The primary responsibility of those who provide security at gay venues is to ensure that its patrons feel safe and secure. As incredible as it might seem, LGBT people have been subject to homophobia within gay bars/clubs.

I obviously don’t know your particular circumstances, but as a gay man I appreciate a discerning door policy to ensure that everyone (gay and gay friendly) can enjoy and feel comfortable in what is a very small gay scene in Ireland.

What form of marriage would accommodate Bisexuals?

Charles, bisexual people would enjoy “marriage”.
As would people of all other sexualities.

Sorry Joost Bos but that’s not an answer to my question.

Charles I think they would have a choice to marry a man or women….(whoever they loved ya know). Just like the rest of us

@Chairles: you raise an interesting question. If you are OK with civil partnerships for gay people but not gay *marriage,* I think you need to ask WHY that is. Actually, since you ask the question, it would be interesting to see why it is you might be against gay marriage. Another question, as a heterosexual (I’m guessing) would you be happy to settle for civil partnership? How would extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples affect marriage? Wouldn’t the state of marriage remain the same for straight couples? For instance, my marriage to my husband would be the same as it was before the introduction of marriage. My daughter would continue planning her wedding. If we follow the Lucinda Creighton theory that marriage is primarily about having kids, wouldn’t hat remain the same for child-bearing straight couples and finally support the children being raised in same-sex households? I am genuinely interested in hearing your point of view. I am genuinely interested in hearing exactly why marriage should be a straights-only institution or how its sanctity might be affected by extending the rights to all loving adult couples.

Quick comment for now Cecily, due to pressure of time.You havn’t addressed my last question either. Indeed you conclude with an apparent assumption that marriage is for couples only.Why not threes or fours, of whatever gender mix as long as they all love each other?

You’re pro-polygamy, Charles?

Cecily, I’m sure you’re smart enough to recognise a little irony when you see it. The State has an interest in promoting marriage (by which I mean a union between a man and a woman) because that institution generally, but not completely without exception, is the best means of giving children the best chance in life. If one treats marriage as a label rather than an institution (sanctity doesn’t come into it) then one is undermining the basic building block of our society in pursuit of “equality”,stretching and distorting the institution so that one size fits all and the whole thing becomes meaningless. I recognise that same-sex couples in long-term relationships should not be legal strangers and that is why I have no issues with civil partnership. But marriage is a different matter.

That still doesn’t add up. How is it “undermining the basic building block of our society”? Marriage remains exactly the same for the heterosexuals that enter it and lead it. How exactly would equality distort the institution and make it meaningless? Extending the vote to women (basically making one size fit all) did not distort democracy or make it meaningless. Allowing blacks to eat at the same lunch counter as whites did not fundamentally change the concept of dining out. It’s big of you to so generously “recognise that same-sex couples in long-term relationships should not be legal strangers” that you “have no issues with civil partnership.” The length or longevity of a relationship is no barrier to marriage (recent examples include Sinead O’Connor). Couples have to prove nothing except that they are mutually agreeable to the contract. The idea that society’s support for the notional family would crumble if rights to civil marriage were extended to all couples holds no water. Who would back out of marriage because of it? How would society treat families differently? Isn’t the Family Unit already fairly different animal to that which prevailed, say, 30 years ago or outlined in the Constitution? The sky hasn’t fallen in. Family courts will continue to have a vital role. Families will still function as well or as badly as ever. Is broader subject of The Institution of Marriage generally invoked when a family is in crisis or a child needs help? Making marriage fairer and more equal will not affect that one whit.

Charles, it does answer your question. You asked what sort of marriage bisexuals would enjoy, and I answered “marriage”. Since there is not more than one type of marriage, how can that not answer your question?

Cecily, perhaps the “sky hasn’t fallen in” but don’t tell me that society is better for the erosion of the traditional family unit. That is not to say that all change is bad but it’s not always good either. We need to take stock of where we are and where we are going, not hastily redefine our basic societal institution to make a point about equality. It is a basic fact of life that only a male and a female human can procreate.Society has an interest in encouraging that procreation to take place in a stable environment.That’s the justification for different treatment.Joost, just so we’re clear, does your concept of marriage include the right to terminate the union on grounds of adultery?

You didn’t answer the question at all. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will not remotely affect the stable environment in which to raise children – how could it? That old chestnut about only males and females being able to procreate does;t answer the question. Like it or not, many gay couples are parenting – and very well, too – why shouldn’t their situations be regularised in the same way as other parents. They could be adoptive parents (cue hysteria) or a couple where one parent is the biological parent and the other the step/adoptive parent. Those families are every bit as entitled to full respect and equality to mine. Yet again, NOBODY can offer a single, rational, substantive argument against equality.

@Charles – This kid turned out alright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Cecily, it’s a bit more than a chestnut.It’s an indisputable fact.Maybe an inconvenient one, but there you are.Of course there are many different types of relationship, including some based on dependency of one sort or another; but that doesn’t mean that every relationship must be entitled to be labelled “marriage”. What about the elderly sisters, the polygamists? Why can’t I get a straight answer to my question about marriage for Bisexuals?If marriage must be what any given couple (or more) might want it to be,then it will lose meaning. And things that are meaningless soon are discarded. So sorry, but I don’t buy the “what harm?” argument.

The answer to your question about marriage for bisexuals is this: they marry the person they fall in love with. Simple! Could be a man, could be a woman. Marriage – even that envisaged between same sex couples – is a union of two people who choose each other. You seem to think that bisexuals can’t possibly partner with one person. Why? A straight man might marry a woman: it does not quash his attraction to other women, but he is married, so he either remains faithful to his wife or he strays. The same would be true of married bisexuals. It is wantonly disingenuous to imply that a sisterly relationship is analogous to a same-sex romantic/sexual relationship. I imagine you would be outraged if anyone suggested that you were “married” to your male flatmate back in the day. The indisputable fact of biology is not, in itself, the “chestnut” and you know it: it is the deliberate avoidance of the reality of other, non-traditional but equally valid family types that is nutty. It is interesting that you insist that extending marriage to same-sex couples would render marriage meaningless. Is it a case of “well, if THEY can marry, what’s the point?”? If so, you should probably preface it with “I’m not homophobic but…”

Cecily, You were doing well until you got to “equally valid”. Heterosexual relationships are critical to the survival of the human race and therefore deserve, perhaps require, special treatment. I know we’re not going to see eye to eye on that. I understand your point about Bisexuals; indeed I suspect there are many married Bisexuals who remain faithful to their spouses to the end. But if one makes sexual orientation the be all and end all, as I think LGBT activists tend to do,then it seems incongruous to expect the married Bisexual to suppress part of his or her sexuality just because he or she is married. It would only be a matter of time before monogamy would come under attack as an outdated concept (or should I say even more outdated?).

Oh puh-lease! Heterosexual relationships are, indeed, critical to the survival of the human race: how would allowing same sex marriage change or endanger that? And bisexuals are so consumed by horniness that they can’t commit to one partner? And allowing them to marry would be an attack on monogamy? You *really* expect anyone to swallow that guff??

Cecily,I’ll overlook your condescension, acknowldge that we are not going to agree, and wish you a Happy New Year.

Charles, you fail at debating if you’re simply going to leave. Debate is not primarily about getting the other to agree with your standpoint, but attempting to convince the people reading or listening to the debate.

Nonetheless, to answer your question yes, a marriage should be terminated on justified grounds, including adultery or abuse, for example, if at least one of the married parties agree.

I still find it quite ridiculous that you haven’t realised that I gave you a very straight (no pun intended) answer on what marriage would be called if one or more bisexuals got married. I gave a very clear answer: “marriage”. I’ll explain, there is no reason whatsoever to call a legal institution differently according to who partakes in it. It’s discriminatory. We don’t have “voting” and “homosexual voting” or “bisexual voting”. We don’t label legal contracts as “contracts” and “gay contracts”. This is, incidentally, why I think calling the “Gay Rights Movement” such, isn’t very smart. It’s not about rights for LGBT people, it’s about equal rights for everyone, and that is something which I believe you cannot comprehend, Charles.

Joost, I could keep this going as long as you like but we’re going around in circles. I accept that Bisexuals could enter a committed relationship and remain faithful. The law now provides supports for such relationships and as I said much earlier I dont have a problem with that. Where I seem to differ with you and Cecily is that I consider that traditional (ie opposite sex) marriage is more important than other forms of relationship and it is legitimate to incentivise it. I reject the notion of a “one size fits all” or “lowest common denominator” model of marriage. If you give the same incentives to all forms of relationship then they’re no longer incentives.I remember when gay rights campaigns were centred on the right of consenting adults to privacy.Since that worthy goal was achieved the emphasis has changed to the notion that all relationships are equal and must be treated the same and that there must be public recognition of that equality.I sometimes wonder if the agenda is to create a third gender, labelled “LGBT,” with parliamentary quotas and the like? I suspect that the attainment of “gay marriage” will not be the end of the movement.But that is an issue for another day. On the present subject, I just don’t buy into the equality before all else agenda.

“I suspect that the attainment of “gay marriage” will not be the end of the movement.” You may well be right, Charles: if there remain areas in which our gay/lesbian citizens are not treated as equal to the rest of society, then it most definitely should NOT be the end of the movement. One is either equal or one is not: one can’t be ‘a little bit equal’ or shut up because one is ‘more equal than one used to be.’ What is so contemptible about so many of the arguments proffered against equality (particularly for our LGBT brethren) is the patently obvious *distaste* of the deniers. The question of same-sex marriage comes up quite a lot these days and there is always someone who will sweep into say that it will undermine traditional marriage without ever being able to articulate HOW. What is usually clear is that homosexuality offends their sensibilities; it clashes with the doctrine that influenced their upbringing; it is against THEIR religion, THEIR beliefs. Few are willing to admit that it is similar to the distaste that fuelled opposition to mixed race marriages in scarily recent years. I’ve lost count of the times that I’ve heard people say that they’re OK with homosexuality as long as they don’t have to ‘put up with’ public displays of affection – uttered without any sense of irony while they sit in a public place with their arm around an opposite-sex spouse. The sad and sickening thing is that laws might change but people are often slow to catch up: while the law might officially protect LGBT people, a gay couple assaulted for holding hands in the street will be told they ‘should have expected it’ when they make a complaint. We flatter ourselves that we are an open and accepting society. We need a long hard look in the mirror.

So beyond all the political correctness, Charles, I gather, and I may be incorrect but this is certainly what is clear to me, that you’d prefer two different types of marriage, each with the same level of legal rights and responsibilities. One type of marriage is for same-sex couples and the other for opposite-sex couples.

May I refer this simple link to a wikipedia article to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Also, listen to Cecily, she seems to outline my views well.

… Eh, are you serious?… It’s satire? It’s actually ridiculing the homophobic attitude of certain sectors of Irish society.

Well I must be very thick as I thought gay people would find it offensive…..

Easygoing satire…

“Heterosexuality will always be the more natural way of living with homosexuals on the fringes of society.”

Right. Don’t let decades of scientific research that shows that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality get in the way of that view.

“That is the way nature has intended it to be” – please qualify this statement with some evidence.

“You can’t argue with evolution” – so why do gay people still exist? Shouldn’t they have died out now? Oh wait, that’s probably because evolution has nothing to do with the argument. Have a look at how many gay people have perfectly happily married hetrosexual parents.

“As is the case with all minority groups-gay people will always be fighting an uphill battle. To say otherwise is naive” – this does not preclude people from fighting that battle. Last century, interracial marriages were deemed unnatural and unequal as well. Does that mean that the civil rights movement should have receded to their ‘natural place’? Should they have accepted what is now deemed to be an outmoded view of what is ‘natural’? Come to that, should women have accepted their ‘natural place’ as subordinate to their husbands?

Decades of research versus thousands of years of proof. As I said to think otherwise is naive.

There is no thousands of years of proof. You should do some research on homosexuality in ancient Rome and Greece. Homosexuality was so accepted in ancient Greece that the Greeks didn’t even have terms for homosexual or heterosexual.

Kelly you still haven’t qualified your statements with any evidence at all. Now that we know you believe that this evidence has been gathered over thousands of years. But what actually is this evidence that you speak of?

W

Will you ever come up with something better

You probably already know the homosexual community has been decimated by AIDS. But you may not know that, as another study has found: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about 33% of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”3

Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (NO heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.4

According to another study, anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is four times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men.5 And another study found that the “prevalence of EBV type 2 among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%).”6 (EBV type 2 is the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus, which virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt’s lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.)

And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection,7 prostate cancer8, colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis9 in homosexual men.

An article in the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age and that the incidence of gonorrhea among homosexual men rose 74% between 1993 and 2009.

Gotta love your unbiased sources Kelly :P http://cfsh.net/3.html

Your original argument was that homosexuality was unnatural. You offered thousand of years of proof. Unreferenced research about STDs doesn’t show how homosexuality is unnatural.

@Kelly, Well said.
@the rest of ye, if doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the vast majority of the populus are heterosexual.

I don’t want to live on this planet anymore…

@Peter – the vast majority of the population is white. Is it all right to discriminate against black people now? Cop on mate.

I have no problem with people who disagree with me and others who agree with me attempting to engage with the issues, and understand that many people do disagree for various reasons (which usually fall by the wayside on an honest examination of the tenability of their beliefs) but that comment didn’t even attempt to engage properly with the worrying issue of homophobic bullying.

Some of the comments posted on here are extremely worrying. Such hatred.

Kelly more heterosexual people than homosexuals have HIV (I presume this is what you were referring to when you mentioned, incorrectly, about AIDS)! Your comments are full of inaccuracies, so much so that I believe you have no idea what you are talking about.

“it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the vast majority of the populus are heterosexual”

A minority of Irish people are redheads. The vast majority of the populus are brunettes, blonds, or have black hair. How do we tackle the red-headed minority who are peskily insisting on “equality”?

I have no intention of wasting my time trawling through outdated, poorly researched and in most cases utterly discredited “research” you have rehashed here – “research” which mainly features on the websites of far right religious groups from across the Atlantic.

But for those who are genuinely concerned about STD’s rather than using manipulated or distorted data to advance an anti-gay agenda, the focus needs to be on sex education and urging everyone – gay and straight – to look after their sexual health. And here is another finding – breaking down ignorance and discrimination will help greatly in that task.

Thanks Kelly. You’ve shown us the decades of research. Now, where’s the proof?

@Rachel Barry. Thanks Rachel, Am i racist now too??. You are correct i didn’t engage properly with the problem. I am heterosexual not gay. I do not have problems with gay people. It may be easy to read between the lines with my short comment. However facts are facts and heterosexuals greatly outnumber gays, simple fact nothing else.
Happy New Year x

I hate when people talk about the heterosexuality as being “natural” like that justifies bias in favour of it. If one was to follow that logic if a person has a Asthma attack they shouldn’t use their inhalers because its not natural.

Kelly, homosexuality is naturally occurring and gay people have evolved along with the rest of us. While you seem to acknowledge the unfairness and wrongness of discrimination and exclusion, I hope that you are evolved enough to challenge it.

Yes, but if your gay friend was a teenager or young person, who hadn’t come out & was feeling insecure, what did the “harmless banter” using the word ” gay” say to him/ her? Everyone must consciously create a verbal climate which saves people the pain of feeling unaccepted. How would a black person feel if the “n” word was being bandied about? THINK before you open your mouth!!!

Ha ha! See ya!

Goodbye Philip, you’ll be missed like a boil on the arse!!!!

*Shakes head sadly* Sheesh. The temerity of the journal.ie engaging in debate on social issues. What is the world coming to? Tatty-bye, Philip. Safe trip back to the 1950s. Kisses!

Nice ass…

I’m so glad we have prophets here to tell us exactly what God thinks. Do you have a direct line to God, then, Philip? What else does he have to say?

In fact, the Bible makes no reference whatsoever to lesbians. Could you ask God and clarify his position for us?

Gay couple on a plane, kissing and cuddling. Person in seat behind objects:
“It’s un-natural”
“Er, we’re flying at 30,000 feet”…

Philip – any idea what are Sinn Féin’s policies on gay rights, god and all that?

Yeah, but I bet Adam and Steve can spell.

People who can’t spell irritate me. But I get over it and mind my own business. Live and let live I say.

Philip you are wrong and need to educate yourself.

The book of Genesis is a fairy story.

Well Philip your argument rhymed so I guess that makes it a valid argument. By the way “God” made nobody.

If God didn’t make the gays who did? You crediting some other deity with creation? God made the gays – just like he made the homophobic dickheads and gave them access to computers and Sinn Fein memberships.

@Cecily, nobody did.