TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 19 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Column: Eamon Delaney’s attack on gay people is full of all the oldest tricks

Journalist Eamon Delaney may claim to stand for equality – but his assertions are nothing but the usual homophobic bullying, writes GCN editor Brian Finnegan.

Brian Finnegan

THERE IS A hard and fast rule when writing a column that criticises gay people, whether it be about their politics or their lifestyles: Always state somewhere in the copy, preferably at the beginning, that some of your best friends are gay.

By letting your readers know that you count homosexuals among your homies, you can give yourself carte blanche to say whatever the hell you like and not call it homophobia.

Some of your best friends are gay, so that means you actually really like the gays, doesn’t it?

Eamon Delaney went one step further in his Sunday Independent column ‘Loud and proud gays want to take over the rest of society’ on 30 October, telling us that he once lived in New York’s West Village and was accused of ‘trading off’ on the gay fun there because he wore a copycat denim jacket and tartan shirt.

Mr Delaney never said exactly when he lived in the West Village, though I suspect it was in the early 1970s when denim jackets and tartan shirts were actually fashionable with gays. But I digress.

Once he had assured us of his gay-friendly credentials, Delaney trotted out that other most important gambit of any anti-gay column: the suggestion that the gay community are looking for special treatment in society. When composing this part, the columnist must be very careful not to use the words ‘equal rights’ or ‘equality’ and should substitute them with the words ‘more rights’ and ‘privileges’, which Delaney duly did.

‘Won’t somebody please think of the children?’

I could go on. Delaney’s column is so full of stock arguments to convince the Sunday Indo’s readership of the stalking threat of the gay community to society at large, it’s as if he read The Idiot’s Guide – the gay community is divided over the political fight for our rights; gay men are sexually voracious but at the same time want to be perceived as respectable, and blah, blah, blah.

These lies, of course, led to the central thesis of Delaney’s argument – that same-sex couples should not be allowed to parent children. It always comes down to this – the lady in the church choir, crying: ‘Won’t someone please think of the children?’ It’s what they call the oldest trick in the book.

The clever, if not very emotionally intelligent aspect of Delaney’s column was his insidious use of words like “freewheeling sexual activity” and “radical departure in parenting” that hint at a darker force at work as same-sex couples strive for the right to be recognised under Irish law as parents. Delaney backed all this up with an assertion of his reasonability – he was simply questioning “the direction and motivation of the whole sexual rights agenda”.

Gay people do not have a sexual rights agenda. We have a human rights agenda. We are seeking equal rights to the rights Eamon Delaney enjoys, which we believe we are entitled to because we are fully functioning human beings who contribute equally to society, who just happened to have been born with an attraction to the same sex.

Eamon Delaney has children. I would assume he takes the rights his children have to recognise him as their father under the law for granted, and so he should. All children, whether they be biological or not, should have a right to their parents.

‘I was born gay. Eamon Delaney was born straight. Does it mean he is a better parent than I am?’

Under current Irish civil partnership law, the children of same-sex couples – thousands of them who do exist, more of whom are being born every day – have no legal right to one of their parents, leaving them wide open to discrimination endorsed by the State.

I also assume that even if Eamon Delaney and his wife were not able to biologically parent children, they would take their right to apply to adopt a child for granted. Luckily he’s not had to go down this route, and as a parent he knows the great joy of having a family. He knows of the unconditional love that can only be experienced by being a parent, of the naturally full and rich experience of life that having children entails. I assume he knows all this because I am also a parent.

I was born gay. Eamon Delaney was born straight. Does this mean that he has more of a right to experience the joy and pain, highs and lows, cares and comforts of having a family than I do? Does it mean that he is a better parent than I am?

When Mr Delaney goes on about “more and more rights and privileges” he might as well be talking about himself. He is the one with more rights and more privileges, simply by dint of the fact that he was born straight.

When I talk about being born gay, I do so emphatically because I know that the anti-gay agenda is underpinned by the falsity that being gay is a ‘chosen lifestyle’.

I am the editor of GCN, Ireland’s 24-year-old gay publication, which according to Delaney is full of ads endorsing late-night gyms, sex lines and a freewheeling sexual activity which would be dismissed as sleazy in heterosexual culture. (I doubt Arnotts, who currently advertise on the back page of GCN, would agree.) In my position I am often contacted by people who are experiencing difficulty because they are gay. On several occasions I have been contacted by teenagers who are suicidal, just as I was suicidal when I was a teenager myself.

‘Young people are still suicidal’

Why did I think of taking my own life? Because I was brutally bullied day in, day out at school by boys who identified me as gay. I did not choose to be gay, just as I did not choose to have my head stuck down a toilet or to have boys simulate raping me for the amusement of others.

It is a great sadness to me that although I am now in my 40s, and fully loving and accepting of myself as a gay man, that this problem has not gone away in our schools. Young people are still suicidal, still killing themselves because other young people torture them for being gay. In the Supporting LGBT Lives report, commissioned by the National Office for Suicide Prevention in 2008, over half of those aged 25 or younger at the time of completing the survey admitted to ever having given serious consideration to ending their own lives while just under 20 per cent reported having attempted suicide.

I would hate for one of Eamon Delaney’s children to be identified as gay in school (whether he is gay or not) and bullied for it. I would hate it if one of his children secretly thought of taking his own life and couldn’t talk to his father, a man who thinks that gay people somehow have less of a right to a full human life than other people, about his pain.

It is because of columns like his that anti-gay bullying persists. In fact, with his column, Delaney, who asserts that he is “all for gay rights and an end to prejudice and discrimination”, has become the bully.

There will not be an end to prejudice and discrimination as long as columns that tell lies about gay people are published in respected newspapers. There will not be an end to prejudice and discrimination as long as people like Eamon Delaney believe that gay people do not deserve the same rights as he enjoys.

We don’t want ‘more’. We want the same.

Brian Finnegan is the editor of GCN and can be followed on Twitter: @finneganba. His first novel will be published in 2012.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (91 Comments)

  • I have 2 sons and one on the way I am straight but the man who I have babysit for me is gay he would make a great dad but does not have the same rights my boyfriend and I have if I wasn’t blessed with being able to have children we could adopt, or foster as a couple, I trust this man wiith my children and these myths they are sexual deviants are just that, myths. my eldest son is 13 and youngest is 2. the eldest boy has no problems with a gay man “babysitting” him. a person is born gay, bi, trans, or straight why should they be second class citizens because of this, we can’t treat people like this because of the colour of their skin, religion or race why can we do it because a person is born gay ?

    Reply
  • As I have said numerous times before; Most gay people have straight parents; so by Eamon’s logic, it’s time to stop heterosexuals raising children…

    Reply
  • Is it just me or is the Indo (and especially the Sunday edition) turning more and more into the Daily Mail? Or has it always been at this rock-bottom standard of journalism?

    Reply
  • Let’s not forget Dellaney’s dismisal of bisexuals as some 70s experimental fad or dismisal of transgendered people being included in society at all.

    Reply
  • Getting “married” on Friday! Hurray for me!

    Reply
  • Great passionate but balanced response to a disgraceful piece of tripe wrapped up as journalism. Sunday Indo should hang its head in shame..standards are so low it could be owned by Murdoch

    Reply
  • I know, it’s terrible Alan. Banging on about discrimination and homophobia. When will these people ever shut up?

    Reply
  • Just read the piece through posted link and delighted to say my decision to stop buying this tabloid has yet again been vindicated. I’ll continue to not buy this ridiculous rag in the future.

    Reply
  • Maybe Rosa Parks should have stopped banging on too and just gave up her seat on the bus for a quiet life.

    Reply
  • Bloody gays! Next they’ll want to vote! Just be glad you don’t pay taxes, maybe once you do that you’ll be treated equally! … wait a minute…

    Reply
  • I don’t have anything against heterosexuals, indeed some of my best friends are heterosexual, it’s the out-and-proud types like Delaney who want special privileges and so-called “rights” that get me annoyed.

    Reply
  • Sharrow 03/11/11 #

    “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.”
    ― Dorothy Parker

    Reply
  • Its a sad day when half wits write about ‘proper’ parents as Delaney has done preaching his hetro family values. I am a londoner studying at TCD and all i can say is if he made those comments in London he’d be laughed at. Just this week in the news David Cameron is threatening to cut aid to counties that discriminate against gay people. When will Ireland wake up??

    Reply
  • I think, on a point of balance, the journal.ie should have posted a link to the article by Delaney as I think your readers would like to see the piece in question.

    Reply
  • You know Alan, somewhere in your twisted logic I can agree with you – we SHOULD have a society where people (as Oliver Callan put it) “didn’t need to come out”, where one’s sexual orientation were genuinely inconsequential and didn’t affect how anyone and especially the law saw them. It shouldn’t matter in any sense.

    But we don’t live in that perfect society, do we? They’re still largely treated as second class citizens and no one should expect them to tolerate it.

    Reply
  • I think the point is is that sexuality shouldn’t be a definitive characteristic of an individual. You don’t go around talking about how you’re straight because people don’t label you as such or treat you differently as a result.

    I read the article on Sunday and wondered what the point of it was to be honest. It struck me as an unprovoked anti gay rant really.

    Reply
  • If you’re gay and you want to get married you should have the same legal right as someone who’s straight. If you want to adopt children, go through the process and are deemed suitable you should be allowed. Being gay won’t make you a bad parent any more than being straight will make you a good one. What kids really need (in my opinion as a parent) is a loving, caring, stable home where they feel safe and cherished. Why would you not be able to provide that because you’re gay?

    Reply
    • As long as the people who determine “suitability” to adopt are selected by the established authorities (who are inately conservative no matter their political leanings) then Gay couples will never be deemed suitable even if the law allows gay couples to adopt. It’s just too arbitrary

      Reply
  • Fair play for the reply to Dosey Delaney’s pathetic excuse for journalism, however I do feel responding to a Dosey Delaney article or a Dimdependant article for that matter only makes assholes like that feel they are writing something worthy of debate…which is obviously not the case. There is always going to be homophobia in right wing rags such as the Dimdependent. How I deal with it is…I dont buy or read or support in anyway such rags and I advice all my friends and family to do the same by pointing out the right wing, homophobic, racist, sexist bias it portrays whenever I see someone with it, which isn’t hard because every story is written with such bias guaranteed.

    Reply
  • I just don’t understand why Hetro sexuals needs to have an opinion on what gays do. What business is it of yours. The track record for straight parents speaks for itself. Shut up once and for all. Live and let live. Sort out your own house before you comment on others. The most vocal in telling others how to live are the most screwed up. And you know you are. Seriously shut up. From a straight dad of three.

    Reply
  • One point: it’s the Indo newspaper

    -buy The Times!

    Reply
  • I did not realise that there were people who still bought the Sindo. It tries to elevate it’s own columnists into being celebrities. Shane Ross excepted they are all tossers.

    Reply
  • Re: Gay Marriage, as Chris Rock once said, “Gay people have just as much a right to be miserable as everybody else.”

    Reply
  • I wouldn’t wipe my ass with The Independent. Seriously.

    A lot of straight parents leave a lot to be desired. A lot of single mums (and a few dads) do amazing jobs. It’s not that simple that the textbook two-parent family unit is somehow guaranteed to have all the elements needed to brew up psychological and emotional health in kids. It’s just not that simple. I know a lot of gay men and women that I think would make great parents. At the end of the day, parenting is the capacity to give love (I say that cautiously, because I’m not a parent, and have no clue about how hard it must be). Love transcends sexuality and gender. And it transcends Delaney’s stone-age frames of thought and fascist take on behavioural health and freedom.

    I have a knee-jerk conservative reaction to same-sex marriage too. But when you start to unpack what a mess family is in reality, it becomes less and less justified to hold that reaction. Human beings are fucking strange, and that’s the bottom line for me – gay, straight, or any other thing. We have to allow for it.

    …it’s worth saying again though – I WOULD’T WIPE MY ASS WITH THE INDEPENDENT. Haven’t read it in five years. This bullshit doesn’t surprise me, and writing this right now, I’m on the fence as to whether it was sincere ignorance, or a devious attempt to stir the shit. Maybe both? Like I said people are strange, it’s possible.

    Reply
    • BJ 03/11/11 #

      I think as a society we need to be brave and stand up for what we think is actually best for a child.

      I agree that many non-traditional situations can work but statistics show that the odds are not in their favour.

      As a principle, I agree that the traditional concept of the loving husband and wife, in a safe and secure family environment, is the best situation within which to bring up a child. (despite not being a product of such)

      These days an individual can be accused of being anti-single parent or anti-gay rights for expressing what should, but may not always be, an aspiration for the bringing of children into this world.

      Reply
    • BJ- could we see those statistics, please? Also please explain how they counter the many studies showing that kids raised by same-sex couples do as well as, if not better than, those raised by their hetero counterparts?
      For extra credit: Please explain how the differences in outcomes for kids raised by single parents versus those raised by couples can be used to indicate (imaginary) worse outcomes for those raised by couples of the same sex. And precisely what the commonality is between single parents and same-sex couples which does not exist between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
      Please show your work and be careful to acknowledge the effects of stigma and discrimination as separate to those inherent in family structure.

      Reply
  • No mention, so far, of the experiences of the kids being cruelly bullied. Like most opinions and attitudes, they come from home, first. Any hope for ‘education’ in the schools since these bullies won’t get a healthy one at home on this subject. Interesting how it’s ALWAYS one’s sexual preferences that grab attention. We are people first and, like diamonds, we have many facets. Our sexuality is only one of those. Incidentally, there are heterosexuals with some very undesirable habits, but they’re not immediately apparent.

    Reply
    • Yes, never mind Mr. Delaney if you contribute to an attitude that creates an atmosphere where young people may feel they are an abomination and suffer vicious bullying, and some will take their own lives… never mind… nothing to do with you, eh?

      Reply
  • First of all, I’m not homophobic, some of my favourite bands are gay.

    Am I the only one who is severely irritated by the still alive doctrine that to defend equal rights you have to sing ‘but its biological!’. Why does that matter? Surely it’s possible that for some people it’s not wholly biological and it’s just what they want to do. Are we so close minded in the 21st century that we can’t choose who to love and have to double check our genes? I just think that the proper response to ‘its a choice’ nonsense is who cares? Its love no matter what my or your genes say about it?

    And these people, while not biologically gay, are probably perfectly capable of carrying a gay relationship in an adult way.

    anyway…

    Reply
  • I think your view on marriage depends on whether you see it as a legal vow or a sacrament. Those who view it as the former (me) can accept that any two people who are in love and deluded enough to think it will last forever should be able to be “married”

    Those who view it as something with more of a religious bent (no pun intended) see it only in terms of male-female relationships.

    So, my feeling would be that people who see it as holy matrimony should only get married to those of the opposite sex, and mind their own business when it comes to everyone else, just like I mind my own business about what they do. I’m married to a woman, because I’m heterosexual, but if I was gay and wanted to commit to my partner, I think I should have the right to call that union a marriage.

    Reply
    • I think you are all missing the point, the marriage is used to put people in a in a hetrosexual relationship into a category, we as sentient beings like to categorise everything as it allows us to understand the world around us, so it is not a question of marriage or any other term being inferior to it. Socially we subconsciuosly departmentalize every aspect of society and we use words that have a defining meaning, if we use the word marriage to define every union we cannot in identify the type of relationship. Is it that those not in a hetrosexual relationship don’t want to be identified as being in another type of relationship? By wanting to belong to a club they are inadvertently saying that not belonging is makes them inferior, not different.

      Reply
    • I think your comment points toward a neurosis that’s particular to you, not society in general. There is a subtext that if marriage was extended to every union, you would not be able to differentiate yourself and might risk being compartmentalised in a way you feel uncomfortable with.

      For the record, I think that Zsa Zsa Gabor, Kim Kardashian and Elizabeth Taylor have done more to demean the “institution” of marriage than anyone I can think of.

      If you accept that marriage is a union of two people who are in love, then you can have same-sex and a little compartmentalisation, if that floats your boat

      Reply
    • Where does it state marriage is union of two people in love, one needs to use words in correct context, marriage, as defined, is a union between a man and a woman, nowhere does it state “being in love” as a pre-requisite.
      As for “a neurosis that’s particular to you” I have no worries about my own relationship status. The point I am endeavouring to make but is being distorted by misinterpetation of language is that there is no need for same sex couples to be “married” as long as the union has the same recognition under the law, why would same gender unions want to be titled married, is it that they have a neurosis about being identified as being in a same sex union?

      Reply
    • I was suggesting that a life long union of two people in love could suffice as a definition of marriage. I think that could work.

      Reply
  • Having read the column, I am interested to hear more of the budding bromance between Eamon and David Quinn, I can picture them laughing over a bottle of altar wine, swapping Matt Talbot Top Trump Cards while Dana sings in the background…

    Reply
  • The gay community as any other legitimate group should be given the same rights as everyone else in the country. But this is typical in Irish society its called inequality. Its the reason the country is in the mess its in. Fix it & cure all theyyt problems. I am a hetrosexual male married with 4 kids. I dont have any gay friends that i know of but I have dealing witj members of the gay community & they are just like me no different.

    Reply
  • Brian finnegan. Don’t mind that clown eamon Delaney. I have 3 cousins that are gay and have never given it much thought til I read your article. I love seeing people in love and am always particularly moved any time I see gay people in love for some reason, maybe cos I love a person who pushes the boundaries?

    These people that are obsessed with whom other people love or have sex with amaze me. There’s no doubt that attitudes are changing and articles like delaney’s actually strengthen the masses against his attitudes.

    Keep pushing against this and all prejudices and love, love, love.

    Reply
  • S’funny. Eamon Delaney is probably one of the most attention seeking people I ever came across…

    Reply
  • Eamon Delaney is a shock jock asshole on most things, so why are people surprised by this. He writes for the Sunday Indo. that says all one needs to know about the low standards of his journalism.

    Reply
  • Waffler 03/11/11 #

    in future can you add a link to the articles being discussed in these columns?

    Reply
  • It really does mark a new low in journalism that such a hate filled rant could be published in a mainstream newspaper. The message must be conveyed loud and clear that homophobia is just as socially unacceptable as racism and other forms of prejudice. I suspect this repulsive article will generate a lot of complaints.

    Reply
  • I’ve just read the whole piece that I posted about . I am disgusted and livid by Eamon Delaney’s comments. I’m a young 27 year old guy who now more feels that my whole existence thus far has been a foray into sexual deviance. What message indeed is this sending out to young people? at risk of legal proceedings I dread to think of the young people that will commit suicide on account of this piece…

    Reply
  • Ed 06/11/11 #

    Since when was the sindo a respectable newspaper, I wouldn’t use it eat me chips out of!

    Reply
  • I see that someone talked about statistics & that children are better off with mam & dad..
    Statistics are why this country is f**ked. I have 4 children & maybe sometime in the future one of them will say dad im gay & im not the greatest parent in the world but i hope i can deal with that properly by accepting it. All the clowns that dont accept it statisticly your f**ded. Your setting up you & your kids for a big fall. This is 2011 the gay community has landed get over it.

    Reply
  • Just read the original article (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/loud-and-proud-gays-want-to-take-over-rest-of-society-2920975.html) FFS, looks like Quinn has someone wishing to usurp his throne of bigotry.

    Reply
  • It’s heartening to see such debate on this subject, but saddening to still see succh bigotry or “head in the sand” attitude still exists in Ireland. I left Ireland 27 years ago because I’m gay and wanted to live in a more enlightened society.

    Reply
  • Why does sexual orientation have to come into it at all…. (in reference to adoption and childrens equal rights)… reading some of the horror stories of children in ireland and the uk who have been abused neglected etc by their “straight” parents it becomes obvious that not all parents should have kids, and yet, we discriminate against kind loving people based on who they love? Surely, it should be down to the individuals, not their sexual orientation? And as for marriage… While civil partnership is a step in the right direction, and 30 years ago more than anyone could have hoped for, in todays liberal society its not enough…. If I meet a woman I want to be with for the rest of my life I do not want to have to fight to prove that to the world through marriage….

    Reply
  • Shame on Delaney.

    Reply
  • Its a shit and stupid article should be laughed at nd no given this amount of time,, end of ..

    Reply
    • So you want to put your fingers in your ears and dsimiss everyone elses point of view…very democratic???

      Reply
    • not really pro or con on this, but my take is that gay people are not prepared to accept lesser rights than any other citizen of the state, I was born in Ireland, raised as an Irish Republican in the truest all inclusive word of Republican and at the end of the day as a gay man I simply want the same civil rights that my brothers and sisters have. like it or not, to deny me that, makes you a bigot.

      Reply
  • Straight or gay, we all live in a contradictory, complicated and unjust world. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

    Reply
  • I won’t win any little green thumbs up for making this observation but Brian, if you think “Some of my best friends are gay” is a hackneyed way to begin a gay-bashing article, then I’d like you to know mentioning how badly bulllied you were at school for being/appearing to be gay is an equally standard thing to include in this genre of article. Let’s call it the “Unnecessary rebuttal of obvious troll by actual gay person” genre.

    I’m not saying it isn’t a valid point, merely that it’s a point that has been made before by many, many, many other people.

    Reply
  • First of all let’s look at the definition of marriage:
    “noun
    1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:”
    reference Oxford English dictionary.
    This is not to say we cannot recognise a formal union between two people of the same sex, we just need to give it another name. A society that accepts differences will accept a different name for different types of union as we must be able to understand relationships and put them in context.
    I think the point Eamon was attempting to convey is that it is not necessary to have the same tags applied to relationship amongst the GLBTG members of society and that they should be seeking there own unique tags for their unions, we differentiate all the time in our language such as “athlete”( sprinter,middle distance, etc) and each discipline will not complain about being “pigeon holed”, this is because each wants to be identified as a belonging to a sub group of the general term “Athlete”.In the same theme that we could have “marriage” and what ever other term one wishes to choose as for different unions all under” partnerships”.

    Reply
    • An American dictionary was recently updated to include words such as “Tweet” and “Sexting”. If we can update the dictionary surely we can change it? The english language is changing constantly. You cannot defend the sanctity of marriage using an outdated definition.

      Equal but different is NOT equal. Gay people want the same words to be used because they want to be treated the same. Is that too much to ask?

      Reply
    • For one thing, I don’t think the dictionary is a good guide to life in general. They’re just words.

      For another thing, I don’t think gays would appreciate being given a ‘special’ category for their “partnerships”. I think they would still see it as a lesser status, and I think that would be quite justified. I wonder if Eamon would be making that point if he were born gay. I doubt it. There have been times when I felt in agreement with that point too, but not any more.

      …even though there’s a spirit of tolerance in what you’re saying, I don’t really like it. Is marriage between a man and a woman, as prescribed mostly by ancient religious (read ‘population control’) texts still appropriate in the 21st century? My ‘prime law’ is let people do whatever the fuck they want as long as they are not infringing on anyone else’s right to do the same. If I was gay, I would resent the crap out of someone as blockheaded as Delaney deciding any part of the trajectory of my life.

      Reply
    • Michael,
      Quite apart from the fact that the OED is not the only authority as a dictionary, I note you were rather selective in editing their definition of marriage. The full online definition is as follows:

      noun

      1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage

      [mass noun] the state of being married:women want equality in marriage

      informal a union between partners of the same sex; a civil partnership.

      The bottom line is that equality means equality. Anything else is discrimination.

      Reply
    • ‘they should be seeking there (sic)own unique tags for their unions’ – why exactly? This sort of comment sounds awfully like apartheid to me. People are people regardless of orientation and marriage and love come in a multitude of different varieties. If we start having to use unique terms for every flavour we’d never get anything done.

      Fortunately life does not run according to the Oxford dictionary – in fact it’s the other way round – the OED reflects common usage of English and I guarantee the definition you just quoted will be updated sooner rather than later. And when that happens, there will be one less ridiculous argument to justify discrimination in the world…

      Reply
    • Tony

      If one wants to get technical informal:

      adjective

      1 having a relaxed, friendly, or unofficial style, manner, or nature:an informal atmospherean informal agreement between the two companies

      (of dress) casual; suitable for everyday wear:the guys wore very informal clothes

      2 denoting the grammatical structures, vocabulary, and idiom suitable to everyday language and conversation rather than to official or formal contexts.

      3 (of economic activity) carried on by self-employed or independent people on a small scale , especially unofficially or illegally:

      The reason I didn’t include the whole text.

      This has nothing to do with equality it is insecurity in their own skins, the problem is societies view and that we need to have different words to describe each and very type of union. We can run and hide from the facts or we can face up to them , and that means the acceptance that same sex unions are not marriage but are equal but need a different name. This is a logical approach that needs to be accepted by those that will carry whatever new tag is adopted and embrace it openly. Only then is there equality.

      Reply
    • I don’t think everyone would agree with you about how you categorize things (especially gay people, who have to accept the results), though I do agree some amount of categorization is unavoidable (it’s just important to be free and light with them) as long as we are using language.

      I think you’re taking a lot for granted in what you say there which may be worth questioning.

      Like those terms have an inherent reality that must be upheld (for what reason? the dictionary? the law? the spelling?), when in fact they are more like labels for things we mutually understand and agree upon, and are FREE TO NEGOTIATE AND CHANGE at any time.

      I for one think if two gay people want to call their relationship a marriage, who am I to stop them.

      Reply
    • What I’m trying say there might be better said by something I’ve heard some schmuru or teacher say that I liked. When you go to a restaurant, do you eat the menu or the food? I think I can hear you eating that menu from over here :)

      Reply
    • First my apologies for the mis-spelling, Gearoid you’re understanding of language and use of, to convey a message in a agreed forma,t is where your arguement falls down. Two people being in love do not constitute a marriage, this is where misunderstanding comes in, it is as defined a union of a man and a woman, period.
      Just like 1+1 =2, there is no arguement there, because we are thought in maths that this is indisputable.We need to apply same logic to language so that there is no misunderstanding of statement.

      Reply
    • Well, what you’re calling a fact, I call your opinion. I don’t think the comparison between what you’re calling marriage and 1+1=2 is apt. Maths is very discrete, logical, mechanical and precise. I don’t think language is, and I DEFINITELY don’t think humanity is, especially in the realms of sexuality or social contracts, of all things.

      It might hold for you that marriage has that precise, immutable meaning, and you’re entitled to that view – which is what it is: a view. I’m not trashing your view, it’s just not absolute.

      Reply
    • Michael you putting the word period at the end does not make it a fact. Language is a constantly evolving medium and dictionaries are regularly updated and definitions changed and broadened. It is not at all comparable with your mathematical equation. I wonder what exactly your underlying problem here is though – why on earth should it bother you if two women get married and call it a marriage – why should you care?

      Reply
    • Incidentally I know many same sex couples (in Canada and the Netherlands) who are married – in the eyes of the law, their friends, family and society in general. Theirs is a legal contract called a marriage. No other term needed. They use the word marriage, the law uses the word marriage and nobody is confused whatsoever. If you are arguing the whether or not the term should be used with regards same sex couples I must inform you that horse has already bolted.

      Reply
    • Of course you do know that the legal definition of marriage trumps the OED? Ergo, if we change the legal definition in thr morning, marriage would mean a legal union of any two persons of any gender. That would be fact. Period. Indisputable.

      Reply
    • Just a technical point. Equal does mean different. It means that different identities are treated in the same way as if they are interchangeable. Congruent means identical. Doesn’t take away from the validity of your arguement.

      Reply
    • Just as a side note, that may be the definition of the word now, but once the word “gay” itself meant happy or joyful.

      Reply
  • Couldn’t agree more with Delaney. Stop thinking about gay rights and think about children’s rights.

    Reply
  • I wish there was a better response to that article than just the usual BURN-THE-HOMOPHOBIC WITCH knee-jerks.

    A lot of pseudo-left-liberal-go-with-the-consensus f**kwits getting offended on behalf of other people.

    It would certainly make any journalist thing long and hard about writing a piece such as this without serious self-censorship.

    Reply

Add New Comment