‘It’s Not Even Gay Marriage I’m Opposed To: It’s The Idea Of Gay Adoption’

at

Waters-e1390845844543

In August 2012, the UCD newspaper College Tribune interviewed John Waters for an article on gay marriage. The interview was conducted by the paper’s then editor James Grannell.

Anon writes:

“Quotes from  this interview have been widely circulated on social media in the last week, by Paul Murphy MEP in the European Parliament and by Senator David Norris on Friday’s Late Late Show.  I am sending this because the publication of further details from this particular interview is in the public interest, irrespective of whatever side of the debate any individual falls on. Of particular interest, perhaps, are previously unpublished sections around the 30-33 minute mark.”

We have transcribed the full audio [below] however some parts of the conversation were impossible to discern due to poor sound quality. We are happy to correct any mistakes.

John Waters: “Sometimes I speak to classes of foreign students in a certain language school. In this particular class I noticed recently,they had all Googled me. And they had kind of, you know, a few of them were kind of waiting for me.
Now I think under the kind of instruction of their tutor more than anything, it is not the kind of thing a class would do spontaneously. And, yeah there were certain headings: abortion, gay marriage…and they were kind of like, exactly as you say, they all held the same views, and they were all kind of convinced that I was some kind of backward, kind of, reactionary redneck and they were going to make a joke of me. So I just said okay, em, gay marriage, what do you want to know? So ‘why are you opposed to gay marriage?’ I said, well, in a certain sense I said, you know, it’s not even gay marriage that I’m opposed to: it’s the idea of gay adoption. Because marriage is fundamentally societies way of organizing the the nurturing of children into the next generation. Marriage is the crucible in which children… and we had all that semantic, pedantic, argument that goes on in the whole country, some people blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
And, but I said, you know, where are the children going to come from for gay couples to adopt? Presumably these children are going to have other parents, real parents, fathers and mothers. What is your position on that? Do you have a position? Because I can tell you that the people who advocate gay marriage have nothing to say on this spectrum at all.”

James Grannell: I found that in my interview…

Waters:
“Yeah.”

Grannell: “…they are…”

Waters: “They’re not interested in the words like (inaudible)

Grannell: “No. And it doesn’t really come into their conversation.”

Waters: “Well I would go further and say that actually it is obviously an obstacle (inaudible) the parents.  supply of children for the gay couples to adopt…you know, about adoption initially being to create conditions in which the child who had been deprived of his parents or her parents for whatever reasons: death, incapacity, whatever, to have the same chances as other children by having society replicate, in so far as possible, the conditions of a normative family for that child. Now we have inverted this…”

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters:
“…into the idea that the child has become the product, the commodity, that is supplied to different , differently defined alternative families. This is not what adoption is and then I said that, there was this guy who was being particularly vociferous in the front row, and I said to him, you know, supposing you get your girlfriend pregnant?
I don’t know, he might have been from France, but in Ireland, if this happened to a young man. You would find that you had actually zero rights. You have a right to be consulted, which means they’ll tell you – maybe, if they can find you – if the mother says where you are, and they’ll tell you that the child is going to be adopted.
But I can tell you one thing, you do not have the right to adopt your own child. You do not have the right to say that you were child should not be adopted, you know, you have the right to apply for guardianship to the court, which may or may not be granted and if it isn’t granted well then you can forget about it. Do you care about that? Do you care about your own human rights?
So, what I’m saying is that there are lots of arguments that you obviously haven’t heard about this. Don’t think that this is something you can just jump on to become a fashionable person – to become a person with the right opinion. If you’re going to have opinions, by all means, whatever opinions you want, arrive at them on the basis of reason, and logic, and the facts. But don’t be coming to me thinking you’re superior to me because you actually happen to have a different – you know, a certain opinion which you picked up from your fashionable teacher or your fashionable friends. So this is not limited to abortion, which is even more interesting and I go into that in the article in the Irish Catholic. So. And that’s really the general experience. And you find that with politicians as well. Politicians see this as an opportunity to advertise their liberal credentials.”

Grannell: “Do you think that is a big part of it? These people are talking . I know that David Quinn has mentioned it to me and I was talking to Brendan O’Neill in London. And some people have been saying that, at a time when politicians don’t have much moral weight with people, this is something they can latch on to and show that they’re liberal and that they’re all for equality. Do you think that it’s been latched on to by them?”

Waters: “And interestingly it is the more conservative – quote, unquote – who are most vulnerable to that because they’re looking for brownie points. They think it doesn’t matter, they don’t really care, fundamentally, it’s not an economic issue in an obvious way. It’s not something that their careers will live or die on and so it’s an opportunity to buy credit, you know, in Ireland, with the Irish Times. Oh he’s a liberal, on that issue at least he’s on the right side, so we’ll cut him some slack somewhere else, you know. If you’re in Fianna Fail, you need some slack right now. That’s why Fianna Fail in its recent Ard Fheis had a whole movement which swept the board pushing gay marriage when in fact there there is no discussion at all, none, no discussion. And I actually spoke, I was actually at the Ard Fheis, and I actually raised this question and I said hang on, don’t get carried away with this have a discussion about it because there is lots of issues which you should be looking at here and which you won’t get another chance to look at.”

Grannell: “Do you think there is a danger there because in UCD, there is really isn’t any discussion ongoing? Do you think there is danger on a national level as well, that without proper debate, proper discussion, and people actually looking at both sides of the argument, that something that could be cast into law which will prove two or three years down the line perhaps to cause huge issues…”

Waters: “Oh I have no doubt about it and I think it is going to happen and I don’t think there is any way back from it now, because the way that this is being set up, where there is almost a blackmail clause involved, you know, whereby if you don’t support it you are a homophobe and this bullying is actually silencing people and it is preventing any kind of open discussion people are actually afraid to go out now and march on this issue and you are smeared at and ridiculed and particularly at a time of the internet and the way that they use the internet to bully and harass people and demonise people and I think that it is having this effect. So it is eventually going to happen, and of course the consequences will flow and among the consequences I predict will be the whole, this is really a kind of a satire on marriage, that is being conducted by the gay lobby. It is not that they want to get married it is that they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they are envious of it and they see it as a, really, as an affront to their equality.
“It doesn’t mean much, it doesn’t really mean much, this is the interesting thing, when they were fighting for civil unions, and I raised this question that what they really were wanting was marriage, what they what they were really wanting was adoption. They all denied it, oh no no no, that’s completely paranoia we have no interest in marriage at all, this is about our civil rights. Fine, I have no problem with your civil rights, so that’s fine, you’ve got that but the next day they got out of bed and started to campaign for marriage which is purely an attempt to discredit an institution, a normative institution, on which society, on which human civilization, is founded, and inevitably if you do that there will be consequences, and among those will be be that marriage will become really a nothing in our culture, in time.”

Grannell: “And also, if same sex marriage is passed, it will almost automatically lead to adoption by same sex couples…”

Waters: “Also, it could lead to quotas for adoption for same sex couples, do you know what I mean? I agree with the question, what happens then if some young lad, imagine somebody eighteen years of age, gets his girlfriend pregnant and nobody tells him that his child is put up for adoption and then they subsequently find out that their child is being adopted by the gay couple across the road. If they as much as try to smile at their child they could be arrested.”

Grannell: “Yeah, they are legally like a stranger to them completely…”

Waters: “And this is where we are going, that this will be an absolute disaster socially, morally and legally in our culture.”

Grannell: “And do you think there is a certain hypocrisy there, that the government, the Labour party anyway in government have come out quite adamantly in support of marriage equality, the partiy is pushing this, when since like you say, fathers rights really aren’t anything in Ireland…”

Waters: “Let’s dispose straight away of the idea that the Labour party is interested in anybody’s civil rights per say or their human rights. They are interested ideologically in pursuing the human rights, quote unquote or civil rights, quote unquote, of certain named categories or favoured victim groups. That is all. They are not interested in human rights or civil rights at at all.They are interested in pushing an ideological agenda which is based on certain listed victims no more.
Not alone will I say that they have no interest but they have been actively antagonistic to the issue of fathers rights in the years I have been campaigning. Not one person from within the Labour party, not one, has raised a voice on this issue in a credible way.
I mean yeah, Michael D. Higgins when he saw me at a press conference during his presidential campaign he suddenly followed me and then goes off on a tangent to talk about fathers’ rights and the importance thereof. The first time in my life I ever heard of him speak on these issues. That is about the size of it.”

Grannell: You have campaigned for fathers’ rights, I suppose in Ireland you are perhaps one of the most prominent campaigners, have you received any support from political parties or from the political class in Ireland?

Waters: No, not in the political class. The only thing I would say is that there have been certain people within different parties, from time to time, maybe half a dozen of them, in pretty much all the parties, I would say Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, apart from Labour, not Labour. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Green Party, the Progressive Democrats who came to me and said ‘yeah we would lobby it’. I dont understand why this can’t move somewhere, and then they would go off and they would disappear.

Grannell: They don’t usually follow up on it then afterwards…

Waters: “…Yeah, because they would find exactly why it didn’t go anywhere, because of the opposition, the resistance that exists within the culture, or within the system to any move on this, because if you give fathers rights, you turn the tap off on gay adoption. It does not arise any more, because fathers can just bring their children home. There are no children for gays to adopt.”

Grannell: “And do you think that also..I know the Labour party, and most of the Labour party members who have been supporting this over the last few years and a lot of the gay lobby in Ireland they would be very secular, and very much for creating a secular Ireland, and also want to completely rid anything that has a hint of religion out of society or anything that harks back to even tradition. And it isn’t the attack on marriage it’s coming from that..very secular like…”

Waters: “Yeah, it’s well essentially they have an entirely different view of the human species. It’s a completely untried view and as far as it has been tried we have seen … they believe for example that the idea of these sort of given roles for men and women are essentially a social construct and can be moved around at will. I mean OK I won’t be around to see the consequences of their madcap schemes …. and neither will they…I predict that within 50, 60, 70 years these ideas will have brought disaster on this society and others, but unfortunately when you speak against them, you know you are deemed to be a reactionary, they have set the discussion up, shake the discussion up, you know the term right wing, conservative is a meaningless terms …that’s the battering ram to defeat any attempt to put forward a reasonable argument..,
And of course the fact that they take control of the main organs of opinion now, in Ireland on RTE, Newstalk, Irish Times, Irish Independent are now pretty much no-go areas for the alternative views of human reality, which is, you know, the religious views, the Christian views, it’s unacceptable now, it’s like we have moved past that,it has become the smart, the clever for these ideas. Well let’s see, let’s wait and see how clever we really are because were we are going with these ideas is disastrous I don’t know about you but if was 17/18 and my child was stolen and they give him to two gay people I would make my own arrangements…

Grannell: “But there is also a problem there in like in the abortion issue, where if I was to get a girl pregnant from Ireland, there is no way for me to turn around, she wouldn’t have to name me as a father, she could go to England at the moment where abortion were legalised, she could abort my child and that is something that terrorised me.”

Waters: “That’s very interesting because thats another issue that is brought up with these students, there was this guy and he was very vociferous and they were only kneejerk opinions and I said to him well hold on, wait a minut, you’re 18, okay, and you get your girlfriend pregnant and this is what happens. You know, her parents say, look, this is what it’s going to be like, she’s going to have to have an abortion – lovely stuff – she’s probably going to have an abortion. By the way you don’t have any opinion, you understand, you don’t have any right to speak about this at all. It may be your child if it lives but as you’ll be his father and you will be responsible and all the rest of it but as for now you have no opinion, you understand, so you be quiet.
But, hang on, in this situation, I said, maybe there’s a little hesitation, maybe they’re not entirely sure about an abortion so there’s a parallel window here in which the child may live or it may not live, you understand? Your child may live or it may not live. But you still don’t have any opinions okay? I’m just telling you what’s going to happen. Now, there we are with the situation, you’re 18 years of age and what your society is saying to you through this situation is the following: that if your child lives this society expects you to love that child for the rest of your life, to provide for that child for the rest of your life, to show devotion, duty, responsibility, all these qualities, right, you’re going to have those on standby okay? While you’re saying nothing, okay? But if your child dies you can just forget about the whole lot, okay, do you understand that? So there will come a moment when a decision will be made that has nothing to do and on that moment will hinge whether or not these qualities of love, responsibility, duty, and so on, will be called into play.
So I said listen, listen, if you put your hand in your shirt in there, right, you’ll find there’s a tap in there, okay? You can turn it on and off. That’s there provided by society so you can turn off the love and the responsibility and the duty and all the rest of it, you understand? Look, put your hand in, can you find it? And he just stared at me, and somebody says ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about. And a girl behind him says, ‘no, I know what he’s talking about’.
So this is a discussion that our society never has, about all these questions. And this is fundamentally, you know, people talk about religion, right-wing opinion, there’s none of this – it’s bullshit. There’s no distinction between the religious view and the commonsensical view when you actually deal with all the facts – when you deal with what nature is, you deal with what love is, you deal with what all these qualities are, then you come to the conclusion that is, as it happens, the religious view, but what would religion be anyway other than the total view of reality. But this is inadmissible now because they have reduced religion to a, really, a marginal, tribal sentiment.

Grannell: There seems to be a public sentiment at the moment, and definitely in the university kind of world, that if you’re religious, say I’m a Methodist myself…

Waters:
“Really, yeah?”

Grannell: “…and practising and would hold a strong faith and there is a perception, and I’ve encountered it myself with a lot, if you have any sort of religious faith, that you’re an idiot. Automatically, your opinion on anything, is down to…”

Waters: “When people actually, every day I get an email from people saying ‘I don’t normally agree with you but or, like, it’s absolutely forbidden that you would actually think that if anybody with a religious outlook on reality be other than a complete looper. And if you say something that you happen to agree with on accident, okay, you’ll admit it, you’ll say I agree with him but maybe I need to get some medical or psychiatric assistance because I find I agree with John Waters on that issue. That’s the mentality. And they think that’s clever. So, you know.

Grannell: “It seems strange because if you defend your whole view of the world and the whole perception of reality, like you said that, but, like for instance, Christianity, like, and the Baptists, 2,000 years of scholarly research and tradition, and to just sweep that aside, seems like such a radical thing to do.”

Waters:
“You see, the Pope [Benedict] spoke recently, actually about the bunker created and it’s like we have created this box in which we live, which is coherent, logical, but it explains almost everything, it excludes the mystery of reality, it excludes s the mystery of myself. And it assumes that I’m some kind of wind-up, clockwork toy, that moves around reality, on it’s own, by it’s own volition. That I wound myself up and that I let myself out which is reality. The fact that I came from somewhere that I don’t understand, and I mean, you know, Darwin, literally, yeah, but it didn’t explain to me the mystery that I can actually speak to you now, and call myself John Waters, and have this voice that belongs to me, but it isn’t mine, I didn’t make it, all of these questions are completely obliterated from our culture…so and this is another example once you obliterate then you get bunker mentality and gay marriage is a product of bunker mentality. You know, you warp language, you manipulate words, you say oh there’s an inequality. There’s no inequality, I say to them you know there’s no inequality, yeah there is we can’t get married, oh yeah, you can get married, of course, you’re a man, you can get married, but you must marry a women. That’s what marriage is.”

Grannell: “And of course the fact that the side who are advocating for gay marriage, they say, they literally use words, it’s now called marriage equality, it’s not called gay marriage, it’s the term marriage equality is been clung onto and the Tánaiste came out and said it’s a civil rights issue, that’s very emotive language like for people.”

Waters: “And have you noticed as well, James, that a very interesting thing, that the Irish Times is an exception because the Irish Times has up to now anyway, although it’s beginning to unravel, it has had a very rigid style guide so at least that has protected us from it, but all the other newspapers, from the very moment that civil union was made legal, the other newspapers began to talk about gay marriage, whenever there’d be a civil union they would describe it as a marriage, they used these words ‘wedding’, ‘wed’, ‘they wed’, so, you know, there’s this kind of inexorable campaign by people who really have no particular stake in it other than they they want to destroy what exists. They want to, as I keep saying, they want to walk into the big top with a chainsaw and they want to say ‘that pole in the middle is in the way’. They want to cut it. And they start cutting. And that’s what they’re doing. But it’s going to happen – because we don’t have any intellectual basis in this society any more to fight it.

Grannell: “And that’s actually interesting because I read an article a while ago and it was someone from the gay lobby group, and they were saying that, it was about Ireland, and it was saying that they need to be careful to not push this too soon. That the best thing to do was to wait and to let the civil partnership that’s in place now, let people start talking about marriage more, and refer to it as marriage, and a few years down the line it’ll seem like such a non-issue to people to suddenly have marriage.”

Waters: “That’s already happening.”

Grannell: It’s very calculated kind of..

Waters: The lobby is split on that, you know, there’s a more cunning element, in the lobby, but remember also there’s another element in this campaign, which wants the victory, the victory in which they can advertise that ‘we’ve overcome the forces of opposition, the forces of darkness’, blah, blah, blah, all that stuff, you know, so, and they will, but you know, but they can live with the consequences, that’s what I say, because the consequences will be horrific, in due course.

Grannell: And do you think there’s like a media bias on it? It seems to be..

Waters: Oh yeah, like, I was defending, recently, talking about these issues, on Newstalk, [inaudibe] programme, and he said ‘oh come on, there’s lot of people who are prepared to fight’, and I said this,there’s almost universal pro-gay marriage, pro-children’s rights, pro-referendum, pro-abortion, and ‘oh come on’, he said, and he listed four people: myself, David Quinn, Breda O’Brien, maybe Ronan Mullen maybe not Ronan Mullen, and I said, yeah, but you’ve just now listed 100% of the 1% who actually stick against this, so, you call that balance? You call that… And you think there isn’t an issue?” But, look, unfortunately, the media is a write-off. The media is so corrupt now in this culture – culturally corrupt – that, you know, it’s pointless really talking about it.

Grannell: “But it has such a huge impact on people’s opinions, I mean like, if you turn on, say, RTÉ News in the evening or something and they’re covering like these, the wonderful advances of the civil rights or equality issues going on in Ireland; you open up your newspapers and you’re reading articles from people who are like ‘how important it is to give gay couples the right to marry and the right to adopt; it starts to shape public opinion.

Waters: “But you won’t see any programmes about the rights of the father to… in relation to . It shows us that they’re not sincere in any sense about human rights.”

Grannell: “And then it’s not true about equality either.”

Waters: “No, it’s not. Equality but we’ve identified that, we’ve established that a long way back actually, that in this context, the word equality doesn’t mean equality. It is a particular, it’s really, how would I define? I would define it as it’s the prize that will arise from the defeat of certain forces who are perceived or presented as having dominated in the past. Therefore, if you are white male, straight, you’re the enemy.
So you can, not alone will you not have any equality, but you will have your equality taken away from you to give to somebody else. That’s really what it amounts to. That’s long established like in the context of the equality authority so called where they actually had the provision on their website, or their annual report to say, ok, what’s the role of equality in relation to women, well it’s to give women what they want well it’s to give women completely what they want. What’s the role of equality in relation to men, it’s to [inaudible] that women should be given what they want.”

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters: “That’s it.”

Grennell: T”here does seem to be, when it comes to debates like this, there does seem to be a certain triumphalism that takes over, like you said earlier, it needs to like to have that triumphalism destroying something.”

Waters: “Yes.”

Grannell: “Of taking over, and almost you can turn around and say ‘see now?’

Waters: Yeah, yeah, it’s a form of, it’s a deliberate sabotage of the culture and a relishing of the destruction that is wreaked as a result….Gay marriage is really a satire on marriage.

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters: “The idea of two men in shiny suits, there, standing on the church steps that’s satire of our civilisation, that’s what it is. And that’s what it’s intended to be.”

Grannell: “Do you think that there’s actually a danger, I know, and I know it happened in Denmark but Denmark has a different set-up with the Lutheran church than Ireland has with any church. Do you think that there’s a danger there if gay marriage were passed that, down the line, a lobby might develop, demanding gay couples to be married in churches?”

Waters: “Yes.”

Grannell: “Do you think that this may happen in Ireland?”

Waters: “I do, and that, and not alone that but I think within the Catholic Church, such is the, the, the, the, the drift of thinking within certain sections of the Vatican Catholic clergy that they will be actually trying to make that available.”

Grannell: “Hmmm.”

Waters: “I’ve no doubt about it, within a very short time. I mean you can actually see, alliances are now being forged between certain elements of the Catholic Church clergy in Ireland and the liberal forces of the Left because that’s, they hate the Pope [Benedict], they hate Rome, they hate the power, so that’s the way of actually, you know, really. So they would participate in this satire, as a way of getting back at the Vatican. No, no, I’ve no doubt about that.”

Grannell: “Because it was something that had, something that made me very uneasy a while ago, I was having a conversation with two of my friends and they were talking about gay marriage. One of them is a gay lad and the other girl, like, she’s straight, she’s going out with her boyfriend, another friend of mine. But both of them they really argued adamantly that churches should be made to marry gay couples. And I kind of stood there like, well as a Christian, a church-going Christian, I kind of stood there and I was like, no, like, now that’s against civil rights, like…”

Waters: “We already have that issue with in relation to the registrar XXXX register, XXXXXX…

Grannell: `”Yeah.”

Waters: “…who are not allowed walk out on the basis of their religious beliefs, that has been withdrawn from. We had the issue in the UK where adoption agencies had to close down because they refused to give adoption, to allow gays to adopt children, so all that’s gonna happen. Whether that will come, whether that can be forced on the church, as in Germany… but remember this though, we’re in a very strange, anomalous situation with regard to the church, particularly the Catholic Church and the State in Ireland, whereby to get a marriage annulment,just an ordinary marriage annulled. You know, a man and woman stand at the altar rail before a priest, who marries them for life, then they go back to the sacristy and the same priest presides over a civil ceremony where they get married until they both feel like it.”

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters: “Now, you know, already there’s kind of issues that the church has not dealt with in relation to this so I don’t know how it’s going ya know and I think that sentiment that is coming from the left ranks of the church to feminist nuns, to you know, really liberal priests who kind of, probably, no longer want to be priests…”

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters: “They don’t see any way out of where they are and they’re conducting a campaign, as if the most important thing to do with human reality was sexual freedom. That’s kind of the bottom line. You see what they talk about is celibacy, married priests, and now we will have gay adoption…”

Grannell: “Gay marriage.”

Waters: “…Gay marriage, as being issues which have become the bellweathers of their, quote unquote, Christian outlook.”

Grannell: “Hmmm.”

Waters: “So they’ve mangled Christianity, just as the word fidelity has been mangled, just as the word marriage has been mangled. So I don’t know, I, I, I mean I would be very pessimistic on that score to be honest.”

Grannell: “Do you think that that’s something that’s happening in society as a whole as well, that there’s a sort of an over sexualisation, like, for instance, when I was talking about it to David Quinn, I found it very interesting he pointed out, well, if you’re going to give these rights…he’s in favour of co-habitation rights, and rights for people who are in like relationships together, but he said, well equally that kind of right should be given to, for instance, two sisters who live alone or people like that who are dependent on one another.”

Waters: “Yeah.”

Grannell: “So, because of the sexualisation of society, we only seem to perceive things in that kind of note where if you’re in a sexual relationship you should have the right.”

Waters: “Well you know if two brothers applied to adopt a child, they’d be laughed out of court but the fact that they’re buggering each other would make a difference, would it?”

Grannell: Yeah. Hold on a sec that’s what I was wondering, in the context like.

Waters: “Yeah, it’s mad. And utterly in [Inaudible] I mean what I think, the bigger point that you’ve touched on there is really interesting because I think actually, part of that larger ideological shift, whereby the religious perception of reality is being marginalised culturally, because fundamentally, this obsessive focus on sexuality, you know, it’s bizarre…”

Grannell: “It is. It seems a very strange thing.”.

Waters: “But again they can’t stop talking about transsexuals and transsexual nuns and transsexual gays, you know, I mean, you know, we’re moving towards gay abortion, you know, how can we actually further, keep moving this? And really what that is, that’s very much tied up with the misunderstanding of human desire, that has arisen in the kind of post religion, post Christian era. Because intrinsic to Christianity, and I don’t think it’s in most other religions, is the idea that human desire is focused on something beyond. Now if you actually remove that from culture, then you have only what is the human being, and sexuality seems to be do, sexuality and money and obviously the money thing isn’t going so well.

Grannell: “No. Not at the moment.”

Waters: “So, you have this, that’s what obsession is. It’s quite grotesque really.”

Grannell: “It is it’s very bizarre.”

Waters: “It is surreal. It is really strange. When you stand back from it you know.. a bishop from the Anglican church, does it matter what he does with his mickey in the middle of the night. Jesus. Hello? Like the fact that he’s gay, why is this a matter for discussion for the, the, the, what do you call it?”

Grannell: “The synod?”

Waters: “The synod. Why is it a matter for discussion at all?”

Grannell: “Yeah.”

Waters: “So what, is my opinion. If he wants to keep it private, why do we have to make it an issue that he’s a gay bishop.”

Grannell: “And it equally comes in, in a way, in Catholicism where, I find it fascinating like being outside the box that there seems to be a plethora of lapsed Catholics who have very strong opinions on clerical celibacy and I always find it really strange as I look at it thinking well, why do you care?

Waters: “Well I wrote that recently on what you said on how you play golf. But I wrote articles every week in the Irish Times giving out about the rules of golf saying you know I don’t agree with the one about having to drop your ball if it ends up in pine needles, what do you do there? I mean I don’t take the golfing authorities to task on foot of my disapproval of this or that rule. Why should I care? Similarly, if you’re a lapsed Catholic, say ‘Bye!’.

Grannell: It’s like [inaudible], it’s like fine.

Waters: “Yeah, why are you still around?”

Grannell: “They seem to take quite a big interest in the running of the Church [inaudible].”

Waters: “I don’t know. Virtually all of the religious correspondents in this town are Catholic. People who write about religion.”

Grannell: “It’s very strange.”

Waters: “It’s mad.”

Grannell: “It’s very strange for me looking at it.”

Waters: “In fact, one of them once told me that he went for interview and it was brought up the fact that he was an atheist and he said that the way that he actually dealt with the question was to say to the interviewer was to say that he was an atheist and he said the way that he actually dealt with the question was to say to the interviewer ‘Well you know if I was looking for a job as a political correspondent and i had a loyalty to a particular party being that Fianna Fail, Labour or whatever, he would regard that as a point in my good favour. Why do you think it would be a point against me if I don’t have any affiliation in those context?”

Grannell: “Atheism has become evangelical in today’s world like it, almost.”

Waters: “Well apart from anything else I mean there is a way at looking at the world which is religion and if you don’t actually share that view how can you possibly write on the subject?

Grannell: “Yeah, definitely.”

Waters: “It’s not like politics at all.”

Grannell: “And do you think that there is at the moment there is this kind of like, we had a series of things that happened when the Celtic Tiger came all of a sudden and people in Ireland were rich and it promoted a certain selfishness in a lot of people and then the crash happened, suddenly we all walk around moaning about like what happened during the Celtic Tiger. Most of us interestingly, never looked at we done during those years [inaudible] and then you had a series as well in Ireland in the reports of clerical sex abuse. Do you think that there has been a reaction to all of those things combined that leading where people are throwing the baby out with bath water and leading to it seems to be a breakdown of social fabric in many ways?”

Waters: “I don’t like the phrase ‘baby and the bathwater’ because you know it’s such a [inaudible] but I can see the point you make. But yeah you see people have been hypnotised by this idea of progress that there is almost like this open road before us with no ending and under a different heading, financial, money, sex, pleasure, satisfaction, [inaudible]. But experience tells me it doesn’t work like that. You know my desire which is something far greater than any of the things that it seeks by way of satisfaction. I can exhaust them very easily, you know whatever they might be and they exhaust me. As Augustine says you know, “everything ends in disgust”. And but society doesn’t seem to be able to see this collectively, society is not the sum of its brains, you know it seems to the lowest common denominator so the collective brain is about the stupidest person in the group.
And then when you actually find that, that..excuse me…what…so you know it’s like you think there’s no end to all the progress but I mean the financial story which is true and as a metaphor that’s powerful, it should be. But there actually finding all kinds of ways of disguising the message by blaming people and by scapegoating people, putting people on trial, throwing people in jail and all of the rest of it, which will prolong addiction that actually ‘ah everything would have been fine ah that if these people hadn’t done the dirty’. And it’s same thing you know with drugs and sex and everything else it’s like oh you just didn’t do it right. You know if you had done it right you would’ve got all of the things that you were promised.
And so this [inaudible] it’s part of the material part of society, it’s very hard to talk around it because it’s the logic of everything is controlled within the model you know it’s obvious that you would aspire to all of these things. This is what freedom is, isn’t it? And of course, it isn’t. I mean fundamentally freedom as we discovered in life is something completely different moving inexorably around some task towards some destination that we quite don’t understand but we intuit by some force that we know exists but we can’t define it and so on which is all religious ideas. Ah, so there is this clash between the two freedoms, the freedom that the instinct what man tells them [inaudible] which always fails to and the freedom which promises them something if he can somehow transcend and transcend the basic desire and that is the problem itself. Em..this is the real struggle of man and this is what is going on and all these questions, gay marriage, you know there will always be something to distract people into this paradox and of course we know you might as well be banging your head on the wall trying to bring people [inaudible] it has been. All these questions have been defined as reactionary, [inaudible] and obsolescent. So doesn’t mean we stop talking about it but we have to find new words to keep ahead of the posse. What happens then is that they don’t even have the balls to talk about it. Yeah, because it’s too confusing, they’re standup reactionary you know to fit in with their dramas, which are the discredited past versus the all [inaudible] future.

Grannell: “Yeah. I just want to ask as well, I asked the other people as well regards gay marriage, what kind of reaction have you had from the public when you speak against like legislation for gay marriage like?”

Waters: “Oh well I mean the first thing you get that full frontal false venom from the lobby and then you get a kind of a timid response,. I would describe it as timidity, a sense of maybe you’re right but I’m not gonna agree with you. Ya know, maybe you’re right but ya know. It’s like as if people don’t see what’s at stake and therefore don’t think it’s an issue they can necessarily commit themselves or should commit themselves or forced to [inaudible] being demonised.
So that just shows that the bullying is very effective and this has been very effective within the media. Eh I don’t know how effective they need it to be. I think the mentality of the media tends to be prone to making elaborate shows of enlightenment anyway ah..so it probably wasn’t all that necessary but in any event where we are is that the bullying has more or less prepared the ground now and that there is almost nobody left to speak against gay marriage or any reasonable debate. We’re easily disposed of by…’oh well John Waters would say that wouldn’t he?’.

Grannell: “Yeah. It does seem to be that way the groups who are lobbying for gay marriage they often would parody people who oppose it and in a way then they’re making the public perception is that those people’s arguments are like just a joke like, not to be taken seriously, they don’t have any real basis for their..

Waters: “…which would be…which wouldn’t be as disquieting as it is were it not for the fact that the national broadcaster that tends to share that view.”

Grannell: “Yeah they think that they can get get off under the same issue. It is kind of scary.”

Waters: “It is scary, yeah it is. But I don’t know, normally in these matters I think James you know if there’s nothing we can do other than to do what we are doing then we just do it and we wait and watch and we see what happens then because sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious. Maybe it’ll be too late but at least we’ll have some clarity then. It’ll take some time. It may take years for people to see and already we can see the consequences of that in different ways in our society. Ya know we take that a step further we can expect those consequences to multiply. So…you can’t really..ah…where we are now..there was a massive flood there last year, why? Because they tried to divert the river to build a shopping centre, right? The gay lobby are trying to divert human nature. The same consequences will ensue.”

“Gay marriage is a product of this bunker mentality” (James Grannell, College Tribune, August 2012)

210 thoughts on “‘It’s Not Even Gay Marriage I’m Opposed To: It’s The Idea Of Gay Adoption’

  1. donkey kong

    good man john, stick it to this pinko liberals and their snakey ways.
    you never know your luck you way get a “hilarious” george takei post about you.
    how those liberals would wet themselves,….

  2. Pedanto

    He thinks he is talking about fathers’ rights, but whenever he mentions the adopting couple who thwart the biological father, they are gay. If that’s not homophobic, maybe he’d like to explain why.

    Again, the infallible test of substituting a racial word: “imagine somebody eighteen years of age gets his girlfriend pregnant and nobody tells him that his child is put up for adoption and then they subsequently find out that their child is being adopted by the black couple across the road…” Reprehensible.

    1. jungleman

      I thought the same thing. There is a glaring hole in that argument, i.e. straight couples would also be unable to adopt.

      Another point he made earlier on was that he had no problem with gay marriage but rather gay adoption, and yet he goes on to say that it is a satire and invokes the image of two gay men wearing shiny shoes at the top of the alter. It clearly bothers him quite a lot!

        1. jungleman

          That’s the point I was making.. Why, on that specific point, was he focusing on gay couples adopting? The same could be said for any type of couple.

          1. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

            What Water’s argued was that homosexual or lesbian families are neither fish nor fowl. If such couples were allowed to adopt instead of a child having a mother and a father -and a natural father has traditionally few legally defined legal rights to parenting his child following a marriage break-up-an adopted child in such a family unit would have an unnatural set of same sex parents which is not in the natural order of things. If a child can be adopted by a couple in a same sex union it contrasts further the lack natural rights for a father in a broken marriage. That is a simple point and is articulated openly and clearly in his narrative.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            “If a child can be adopted by a couple in a same sex union it contrasts further the lack natural rights for a father in a broken marriage.”

            Stating it does not explain it and all you have done is make a statement of contrast without explaining what JohnW is on about.

            ….So, no, it doesn’t… or if it does, please explain this contrast.

    2. robin

      Yes I was taken aback by the ineptitude of the interviewer in not even picking up on that glaring inconsistency. What a shame that the observation is relegated to a comments thread – we need these people to be challenged on these things right there, in the moment. That’s when the homophobia shows itself most clearly.

  3. jean

    “Well you know if two brothers applied to adopt a child, they’d be laughed out of court but the fact that they’re buggering each other would make a difference, would it?”

    This man who compares same sex relationships to incest has taken €40,000 of taxpayer’s money to compensate for his hurt feelings over being called a homophobe. Let’s all let that sink in for a minute. Then let’s see about getting our money back.

    1. Mark

      He is a piece of work (J Waters). Small minded and lets not get into Kids who need to be adopted and the state of the care most of them have to go through. You would think that 2 loving people who have the ability to love educate and care for this child should be on top of everyone’s list. Instead you have people who beat the gays with solicitors who say a spade id a spade. And John Waters is a HUGE HOMOPHOBIC. Let him send me a solicitors letter! Gurrrrr. There are already thousands of children living with gay couples who are now adults and “STRAIGHT” the are very decent open minded people who love life and don’t get all this crap. The ones who are children….. I hope to god they get a say in all this about what it would be like to be dragged away from their parents weather its both male of female parents. Its cruel sadistic and HOMOPHOBIC, FULL STOP!

  4. missred

    If you didn’t know that Waters had long since given up the drink, you’d be forgiven for assuming he was gee-eyed as they come doing this interview. My mind is actually blown

    1. Jenny

      I thought he was drunk so passed most of this vile bullsh*t off as a drunken ramble….now that I know he was sober I’m even more pissed off

    2. AmeliaBedelia

      I found it really really difficult to read. Three things John: Augustine has been out of favour in your church from at least Vatican II; when we have marriage equality we we be well on our way to recognising paternal rights in the ways that you have campaigned for and the to-be-adopted child may be born of one in the gay partnership … #mindblown

  5. droid

    So… many… fallacies. I really do think the man needs help. He rarely comes across as someone with a coherent point of view. Just this strange mix of bitterness, hysteria and misplaced anger.

    And WTF is with the interviewer? Chatting with David Quinn, Brendan O’Neill and John Waters? Thats a trifecta of extremist Irish opinion right there.

      1. Peter

        Fair play to James for getting this interview. I know James and I think he did an excellent job of drawing out the opinions of a person who has a major influence on public policy. It’s a standard technique for a features journalist. He should be commended.

        1. Shona

          On the contrary- I think it needs to be said that this interviewer (whoever he was) is absolutely terrible. The whole point of interviewing someone on this type of a topic is to challenge them and throw out a couple of grenades to see how your interviewee reacts, and whether he can intelectually defend his point of view when put under a bit of pressure.

          Grannell seems to have meekly sat back throughout the whole interview and not even remotely challenged him in any intellectual way, despite having had countless oppertunities to do so. This isn’t good journalism, it’s timid, frightened, or lazy journalism, from someone who is either an amateur and afraid to get into the nitty gritty of the subject, or someone who frankly doesn’t much care about the topic.

          In any case, thats certainly how it reads. I hope someone else takes the reigns next time.

          1. Mostly

            There is the Louis Theroux school of ‘enough rope’ journalism as well. Objective, quiet, without ego.

            Let the hardliners, mouthpieces and virtually anyone else feel that they’re communicating to a sympathetic ear and you’ll be suprised at how much they’ll reveal.

            Lazy is an unfair label to hang on the efforts on someone who is burning shoe leather while we all sit and type.

  6. geebag

    “we’re moving towards gay abortion” – stupidest thing I have ever read. Is it defamation to call John Waters stupid?

    1. Kevin Barrington

      Stupid? Yeah 100% accurate. There again so was the other description.
      Gene Kerrigan is spot on calling a gang of outdated bullies a bitter gang of outdated bullies.

      Talk about bad losers.

      1. Anthony McDonnell

        “stupid 100% accurate” homophobic was also 100% accurate and sadly that was not allowed. Crazy is a third one that he’d probably try and contest. What an absolute t***er.

        1. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

          To call Waters homophobic was defamatory and libelous. That is why RTE had to cough up. Personally Rory O’Neill should reimburse RTE and the licence payer as he committed the libel. I notice on the boards at the Abbey O’Neill was careful with his words as he would have to pay for any defamation himself.

          I am disturbed at the extreme abuse penned by the so-called liberals and those who claim to want an open and free discourse against those who sincerely holds views contrary to those held by the homosexual and lesbian lobby and their allies. That characteristic typifies them in te debate and vividly portrays the h&l for the hateful people they are.

  7. somethingfishy

    I can kinda see where Waters is coming from. I agree with him that Fathers have feck all rights and input into their children if they are not married. And i can see how the politicos couldnt be arsed with rectifying this situation as there is no “popular” push for fathers rights.

    From this i can see why he is so anti gay marriage If you set aside the pretense that he is homophobic and view it from his perspective. He is a father of a few children in which he has no legal rights over. From his perspective i can see how one could become bitter at the fact that gay marriage which was unheard of here 10 years ago is well and truly and to an extent all of a sudden on the cards now.

    Waters has been very vocal over the years with fathers rights. I think maybe its bitterness thats overtaking him. May he should use this opportunity to push his father rights agenda more.

    Ive nothing against gay marriage, more power to them. But i do agree with Waters and those campaign groups in the UK fighting for fathers rights. Its really a wrong that should be made right.

    Im not saying fathers should have rights over womens bodies, ie abortion. But i do thing fathers should have equal status under the law when it comes to their up bringing.

    Perhaps we should have a referendum on the same day as the gay marriage, one to give equal rights to all parents.

    1. somethingfishy

      and before ye all beat me to death. Seeing where Waters is coming from is not the same as agreeing with him.

      Its called being objective and then forming my own opinion on his motives. Is my opinion right or wrong. I dunno. But the fathers rights and lack of, is what concerns me more so then gay marriage.

    2. jungleman

      You hit the nail on the head there.. that he should use it as an opportunity to promote his cause re fathers’ rights. But that is not what he is doing. And that calls into question his very motives in bringing up the issue. Would he be happy to vote ‘yes’ to gay marriage if it meant also attaining equal rights for fathers? I’d like to know his answer to that one..

      1. jean

        No he shouldn’t bloody use same sex marriage to promote the fathers’ rights cause, because they’re separate issues and have nothing to do with each other. Rights for fathers is a worthy cause but he comes off as paranoid and mad. If I was working on fathers’ rights I would be extremely dismayed to have a spokesperson like that. Also I’m not sure it’s accurate that he has no legal rights over his kids, I heard he was awarded joint custody of his daughter with Sinead O’Connor – anyone know if that’s true?

        1. jungleman

          I don’t know and I don’t really see the relevance of his own personal circumstances. The truth is that there is a deficit in fathers’ rights and if he is so bothered by this issue he should be arguing that if two grown men are at some point in the future to be legally entitled to raise a child, surely it follows that equal parenting rights should be afforded to natural fathers. What he is doing is saying that because fathers have no rights, gay couples should have no such rights either, not a very imaginative point of view to take.

          1. jean

            I only mentioned his personal situation because the comment by ‘somethingfishy’ above used it as a justification for his horrible views. I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that he’s been deprived of his rights. Plus even if he has, he’s a grown man and to turn it into such hatred for gay people is unforgiveable.

        2. jungleman

          Just to clarify, I’m not in favour of men having a say in whether or not to have an abortion. I’m talking in terms of custody arrangements.

        3. Con

          I think he’s entitled to use gay marriage as an opportunity to talk about fathers’ rights. It’s an aspect of equality that needs to be looked at. Indeed it would be extremely progressive for Ireland to do something to increase equality of parental rights as it’s something that very few (if any) other countries have seriously attempted.

        4. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

          You are absolutely right. He is conflating the issues, and also focusing only on 2 partcular scenarios, 1) abortion, which isn’t a fathers rights issue; and 2) the situation where two very young people conceive a child, and the female decides to have the child and put it up for adoption. Now I don’t know the official procedure in this circumstance, but I do know of quite a few situations where the children of negligent drug addicts were fostered to their grandmothers or aunties; and I would presume that social services would prefer if the child went to a close relative, or parent.
          It is not fair of him to use that example, because it is such an outlier. Does he honestly think that most of the children in need of adoption come out of such situations in this day and age? There are such terrible problems with addiction and untreated mental health in this country that lead to child neglect and child abuse, and there are children all over the world in need of a loving stable home with parents who dearly want to love and nurture them; This man cannot see the good in anything

          1. jungleman

            You are over-simplifying this. The law has to account for all possibilities and the legislature must be very precise in how it makes laws. The issue of gay marriage does relate to the issue of fathers’ rights, quite clearly. If, in theory, two gay men or two gay women are entitled to adopt a child, they are afforded the rights of a family, unlike the scenario where a man and a woman have a child in a non-marital relationship in which case they are not recognised as a family in Irish law, despite the ECtHR stating that this amounted to a violation of Art 8 of the Convention. I am all for gay marriage. But I would have to say there is a very important question to be asked: is it right that a father would be leap-frogged by a gay male couple(or female couple arguably) simply because he was only in a de-facto family, even if he was a loving father?

          2. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

            I do think the issue of parental rights is completely separate from marriage equality, though. Conflating the two is logical fallacy.

          3. jungleman

            I agree with that. But there will surely be an issue over adoption when the time comes and I think that the issue of fathers’ rights will need to be addressed at the same time.

          4. Sidewinder

            All of this implies that adoption of a Irish children is somehow rampant. It’s not. Eff all children are given up for adoption in Ireland. Those that are adopted are usually adopted by close family members or people who have been fostering them for years. Why do you think couples spend tens of thousands of euro on the off chance of getting a child in Mexico or Mali or Thailand? Why people were adopting five year olds from Russia after eight years on a waiting list? I know a couple who travelled to and from Thailand visiting their daughter for two years after waiting for a child for three years before she was even born.

            There are no baby commodities for straight couples let alone gay ones.

          5. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

            Yes I see the oint there jungleman, in relation to the image of a gay couple leapfrogging over an unmarried father; however it is discrimatory to use such an example, because you are by inference saying that the situation is ok if a straight couple leapfrog the biological father. It is wrong if anyone is given a child to adopt where there is a loving parent willing to raise them, and any changes in legislation should come from that position, that the rights of the child to the biological parent(s) are paramount. It is not the fault of the prospective adoptive parent, but of existing legislation and procedure. So Fathers rights should be seperate. It should be parental rights and responsibilities.
            Changing legislation and procedure within the system are not enough, though; attitudes need to shift also; the best way to do this is to teach parenting skills in schools, and also safe sex, and a non religious understanding of sexuality, self respect, and loving relationships.
            The flip side of the coin as regards parental rights is parental responsibility; there are plenty of parents who lunch out, and plenty who walk away from children, both male and female, but unmarried fathers are percieved as more likely to walk away.

          6. jungleman

            I can see how the distinction I am making can seem discriminatory. But I did say in brackets that a female couple could also be argued about on this point. I’m looking at it more from the point of view that a biological father would be in a position where he is basically told that he has no rights because he was a member of a de facto family, which, as I said, the ECtHR said (Keegan, I think) should be afforded full recognition as a family unit.

            My point re the scenario of a father being leapfrogged by a male gay couple is mainly to point out that, while this is a legislative issue, it is not totally black and white, and if one engages their conscience they would surely agree a loving father should not be put in such a position where he is told he is not suitable to raise his child but 2 other men are (it just would not make sense to me if I was the father). I think from the point of view of the child, it is in their best interest that they would be raised by their father in such a scenario. I hear what you’re saying that the injustice already exists with straight couples, but surely the issue should not be compounded when it could be resolved. I think that the reason the two issues are linked is because you cannot on one hand say that an unmarried father has no rights to his child and that it is in the best interests of the child that they be raised by a straight married couple, while at the same time affording marriage equality to gay people. It is a contradiction that arguably must be reconciled.

          7. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

            Well then, Jungleman, you needto get lobbying on the issue; but I honestly think you are focusing on an outlier. Gay couples will have to go through the same process as straight couples to adopt. Unmarried fathers need to be aware of their rights; if the situation is such that the mother is unfit and unable, or unwilling to raise the child, and the father is aware that he has fathered a child, then it is up to him to get proactive about it. If it is a situation where he has been sexually irresponsible, well the thing that diminishes this occurence over time is proper sex education within schools and as awareness camaigns aimed at those sectors of society most likely to be sexually irresponsiible (ie ads on toilet doors in pubs, ads in magazines and newspapers etc.)
            If it is the case that you have a very young father who is unsure what to do, well, there needs to be contact numbers and organisations for young parents with unplanned pregnancies, but perhaps the agencies that already exist need to aim ads and services towards the unmarried male. Perhaps the governments issue with taking up this relates to an unwillingness to invest money into all of this?
            An unmarried father in his 30′s with a job and home is not going to have too much of a problem getting rights to his child, whereas a very young father without family backup and no job or stable home life will find it much tougher. This would most likely be a situation for social workers. As far as I can see, the situation where an unmarried father is leapfrogged by a gay couple is only likely to happen where both parents are unable to parent.
            If an unmarried father is aware that he is going to be a father, there are things he can do to ensure his name is on the birthcert etc; but he has to get proactive, and stay involved/ in contact with the mother. If he leaves her to struggle with the pregnancy, and doesn’t mantain contact, and the child becomes an adoptee, and then he turns around and moans about his rights, well what can you do then? I agree that the system isn’t fair to fathers, even married fathers have problems with access, but it is changing, it is improving; and like I said in another comment, the Family Mediation Services are excellent, and FREE, and open to all parents of children; you do not have to be married, or even in a relationship to avail of them. Both parents have to consent.
            I do not see where gay marriage rights and fathers rights are linked, because, as I said earlier, the gay couple have to go through the same process as the straight couple that want to adopt.
            Most children end up fostered to relatives in this country, rather than being put up for adoption, anyway.
            To me, the issue in relation to unmarried fathers rights relates to what happens BEFORE the child is in a position to be adopted. If the mother refuses to put the child’s father on the birthcert, he has up to 3 months after the birth to contest that. If he makes himself known to social workers in a situation where the mothers is obviously unfit (ie drug abuse/ mental health issues) , I am sure they would be only to glad to help him have his child. It costs the state around 300€ to foster a child, per week.
            The only issue I see where gay marriage rights and fathers rights overlap is the situation where a man who has fathered a child and is now in a stable same sex marriage faces a situation where the mother is no longer able or fit to parent, and he cannot have the child; where he is being leapfrogged by one of her relatives, or a foster parent as regards fostering or adoption. This is actually a likely issue, and one where his rights and responsibilities as father should be most important. He should be the first port of call; however, current “I am not anti marriage equality, just anti gay adoption” type attitudes would freeze this man out, and deprive the child of a loving parent, and him of the chance to raise his child.
            Non Marriage equality situations, such as we have in this country, make the maintenance of stable same sex relationships more difficult; which also prevents such a man from gaining parental rights and responsibilities over his child. If Civil Partnerships are viewed as less legally, then this man is being discriminated against as a father and parent because he is in a same sex relationship that is percieved as less valueble, less stable, less fit for his own child. so; a man who fahtered a child in a previous relationship, and is now in a same sex relationship is RIGHT NOW being actively discriminated against as a parent; this is a much more pertinant issue than a possible outlier that may arise from legislation that hasn’t even been debated or discussed yet (i.e same sex adoption of children where a mother is unfit and the biological parents are unmarried).

            BTW I am a single mother who believes in parental rights for all, and who always understood the lack of paternal rights to be sexist in nature, and the flip side of a system that does not tackle sexual irresponsibility, or chase up errant or absent fathers effectively.

          8. jungleman

            Very succinct! I’m not really affected by any of this presently so I’m afraid the fathers rights lobby will have to look elsewhere! My original point was that Waters was basically saying that he does not advocate same sex marriage rights as there are no rights for unmarried fathers, which I thought was totally illogical when he could have been calling for more equality across the board instead.

            I think we’re both of the same opinion more or less on this really. Although I would point out that just because the marriage equality issue has much more widespread support, it does not mean that there is not a huge number of unmarried fathers also being discriminated against. I think both are big issues in Ireland right now. But I would be sceptical of the motives of Waters in bringing up the topic simply because of his overall tone regarding gay people.

          9. Gg1987

            So many studies have shown that it is not the gender or sexual orientation thats important when raising a child it is more based on the love and support they are provided with during their developmental years. It disgusts me when people start spouting their opinions as fact when they have in no way shape or form even bothered to research the information that allows them to make a sound decision on their stance. There are 100s of research papers out there focusing on lesbigay parenting and the majority is available at the click of a button, e.g

            http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/126/1/28.short

            http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2657413?uid=3738232&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103425290147

            from reading this interview I highly doubt Waters has even considered (let alone had the impetus) to read even ONE of the many studies available.

        5. Keofunkel

          As far as I was aware, he only has one child and that is his daughter with Sinead O’Connor who he does have joint custody over.

    3. ahjayzis

      I think it’s very hard for any man, gay or straight, to have a problem with the invisibility of unmarried fathers in the state. But Water’s makes it sound like an either/or, which is just daft.

      He clearly argues from prejudice. Every interview I’ve heard him on made me feel belittled, untrusted and that I somehow offend him by the silliness of my homosexuality. Vile bigot and out and out homophobe. RTE hang your head in shame, I have no faith in it anymore.

      1. Nick

        Except that John Waters does not give a crap about the situation where two men are raising the biological child of one man and the second father has no recognition. He genuinely believes that “gay men” and “biological fathers” are mutually exclusive, which in this day and age is totally untrue.

  8. lolly

    He clearly regards a gay marriage as inferior to a hetro marriage. he seems to have an irrational fear of gay people’s equality. It is like he thinks the gays will come and steal our children in the night (like the fairies used to do – no pun intended, honest).

    regarding his views on adoption, my understanding is that there are hardly any children put up for adoption in Ireland these days. Some friends who couldn’t have a child of their own went through a very strenuous process that lasted about 6 years in order to adopt. They had years of psychological examination and tests and they had to live in the child’s country for a few months to get to know the children in the orphanage etc. this was all done with the irish adoption board. if a gay couple is willing to go through such hoops to adopt then good luck to them.

    while much of what he says above could seem reasonable on first reading there a huge number of non-sequitors that make a nonsense of much of what he says. Pedanto’s point about substituting black or inter-racial say for “gay” should point up the bigotry in much of what he says.. Also it didn’t seem like an interview but rather a cozy chat.

  9. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

    I couldn’t read all of that! I tried; I struggled, but I only made it 4/5ths of the way. What an awful load of bigoted toxic diatribe (diarrhea)!
    A person must be very very empty on the inside if they need to spend so much of their life and energy trying to sway public opinion, or browbeat it in order to prevent a sector of society fom having the same rights as the rest of us. It seems to me that he is projecting his psychological complexes onto the issue. How many gay couples are actually going to adopt children anyway? About 5%? 2%? I am not sure of the figures, but I am sure it will not be easy for them at all. If he is so worried about the children, why isn’t he doing something for all the children in care in Ireland?
    Has anyone asked Sinéad if she got any of that 40K? Someone should tell her! I bet that jizzrag hasn’t given a cent of that to his kids…
    He has probably kept it for beard oil.

    1. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

      Sorry that was a bit ranty – I feel very queasy and a bit brain dead after wading through that load of toxic spew

  10. ed finn

    Well Waters was right about one thing “As Augustine says you know, “everything ends in disgust” well John that’s exactly how I felt when I heard that you got €40,000 from RTE, total disgust!!

  11. Maxi

    The big question I have out of this is why does Waters, a man who is not married, have a bee in his bonnet about this? It’s a bit like him going on about lapsed Catholics above – what matter is to an unmarried man like himself?

  12. Clampers Outside!

    I don’t think anyone will have a problem confirming John Waters as a homophobe after that.

    He’s a sorry little man, giving out about changes within the Catholic church because they are not the changes he wants and then rants about those making the changes shouldn’t be interfering, including lapsed Catholics… lapsed Catholic or not, when you’re in, you’re in. Them’s the rules John, one doesn’t just walk off of the Catholic church registrar.
    Muppet.

    Thank you as ever Broadsheet, sterling work!

  13. Salmon of Nollaig

    Sometimes I speak to classes of foreign students in a certain language school. In this particular class I noticed recently,they had all Googled me. And they had kind of, you know, a few of them were kind of waiting for me.
    Now I think under the kind of instruction of their tutor more than anything, it is not the kind of thing a class would do spontaneously.

    Sounds very like his solicitor’s statement that RTE had spent ages googling him.

    Not very effectively. Extraordinary how Broadsheet could lay its hands on this transcript, and RTE could not.

    What is scary about this is twofold. Firstly, this man was on the BAI. Secondly, if he had his way we couldn’t call him a homophobe.

    This shows why we must fight and continue to fight for free speech. The people who object are often the ones who either have something to hide or – as in this case – are completely incapable of perceiving themselves objectively, or both. There’s a very clear fear and dislike of gay men evident in this interview.

    1. Salmon of Nollaig

      Also. This shows exactly why conservative legal advice, followed by a public service broadcaster, can be more dangerous than any damages award. It’s all very well to blame the law of defamation for limitation on free speech but the law’s only as good as the work put into arguing it – was no consideration given to the question of actually researching whether or not the statement made was justified, or reasonable?

  14. Sendog

    Here is a conumdrum!

    As it stands in Irish Law, as far as i know, when a married couple seperate the mother will always get the children. Remember the constitution says that mothers have a special place in our society. I may be wrong and this may have changed with the recent childrens referendum.
    This is wrong as Waters has pointed out on numerous occassions with his fathers rights agenda.

    Here is the question. Say two gay men marry and adopt. Not long later they seperate, for whatever reason. Who gets the kid should it go to court?

    And where does that leave the rights of a father in an hetro relationship.

    And dont dismiss this question as a being implausible. The law needs to cater for every eventuality in case its reduced to farce.

    1. Pointlessillism

      You are wrong on multiple counts here.

      There is absolutely no law in Ireland that says “the mother will always get the children”. Where custody and residence issues are decided by court, children usually reside with the mother – but this is not the result of a law but rather a reflection of the fact that mothers make up the overwhelming majority of primary caregivers of children. The courts priority is stability for the children – that means continuing as much as possible the state of affairs that existed prior to the split which in the majority of cases, means the woman continuing to do most of the daily childrearing.

      The constitution makes no reference to “mothers having a special place in society”. You are thinking of Article 41.2 which, though ludicrously sexist, remains in place regardless of the Children’s Referendum.

      I’m not sure why you think the notion of gay parents divorcing is implausible. They are people like everybody else, of course some will split up. They will probably be like the approximately 80% of separating Irish couples who resolve issues of finances, custody, etc by mutual agreement. Those that can’t will go to court where a judge will, absent other factors, try to maintain the caregiving arrangement the family had to begin with.

      The only farce here is the nonsense peddled by the likes of Waters. Check out some of the Family Law publications. Read Dr Coulter’s report on family law. Don’t believe unsubstantiated rubbish.

      1. The (Alive Alive-o) Institute of the combined Gay Lobby and Gay Ideological Movement, now Known as the Ideolobbical Rainbow Institute

        Hear Hear; I for one have worked with the Family Mediation Service to sucessfully resolve issues during a separation for the good of the children. The Mediation Service is completely FREE, and I noticed a lot of men working there as counsellors; we had a male counsellor. We sorted out joint guardianship; all it cost was €10 at the courthouse! No need for any procedure and rigmarole! The issue of Fathers Rights is changing slowly, but is actually changing.
        This bigot is not helping hte issue by trying to conflate it with gay marriage

  15. John Murphy

    I hope RTE will be seeking the return of licence payer’s money. This man obviously has issues is egocentric and is most definitely a homophobe. His subjective (somewhat paranoid) rambling opinions are obviously to his mind valid. In reality are bigoted narrow-minded and offensive. His pejorative remark regarding the two brothers for me is the catalyst of his true disdain and that of a homophobe.

    He is trying to disguise this using adoption as some moral recall. Gays and children uhhhhh.He does not seem to be able to distinguish that gay people come in both genders male and female. There are already many gay family’s out there in homo land (I’m being ironic)that are successfully leading normal lives raising children adopted and biological.
    To quote Mr.Waters as he so eloquently describes him self “kind of backward, kind of, reactionary redneck, someone to be made a joke of” I couldn’t have put it better myself.
    There are more pressing issues in Ireland to concern yourself with Mr. Waters than two consenting adults who want to profess their love and fidelity in the union of marriage. What is so wrong with that? If you can’t understand it at least accept it.

  16. Wait For It

    “Therefore, if you are white male, straight, you’re the enemy.”

    Straight white men, society’s forgotten oppressed.

    If someone’s so afraid of ‘the gays’ adopting their unwanted child, there’s always abortion, John.

  17. Diddy

    Gay marriage .. What harm I say.. Gay adoption.. it’s so hard for straight couples to adopt in thus state. I can see a couple of gay lads in their late 30′s having difficulty swinging it. The jury is out

  18. Rainbow Summers

    This is the first time in the past two weeks that I have had a chance to actually see what John Waters thinks. I support gay marriage, and not because it is the cool view to have these days, but because my sister is gay and I support her. But I think jw raises questions that should be debated openly. If something happened me in the morning, I would want my brother and his wife to raise my kids, rather than my sister and here partner. Just because I think they would be better at it, they have more experience. And I think my sisters lifestyle would require too much sacrifice for her. She is used to a great deal of freedom and personal choice that she would not have as a parent. I think the adoption issue is mute. In my experience most gay people are quite self centred and would not have the space for kids. And if they do,and want to give a good life to a child, why not? I have a small fear that tis could lead to a growth in surrogacy, and foreign surrogacy, something I also think needs a debate. Like that couple in Clare who basically enslaved a woman in India to have a baby for them. I know this is a different issue to gay marriage but it is relevant. If gay people marry and want children, where are they going to get them? Don’t beat me up or call me homophobic please.

    1. Karen

      Perhaps you’re letting your PERSONAL feelings about your sister influence your belief that “In my experience most gay people are self centred”. In my experience that’s a horrible thing to say, completely untrue (and yes-bigoted). In my experience most human beings are incapable of giving their children the unconditional love they deserve, but that doesn’t seem to stop endless straight people going ahead and deciding to be parents, why should it stop gay people?

      1. Rainbow Summers

        Karen if you take the time to read my post you will see that I am in favour of gay adoption. I just have not met many gay people who actually want to adopt, that was my point. So I don’t think it’s a huge point. But I think this all needs to be debated. How can the world move forward without freedom of speech? I’m nearly afraid to say I don’t like the colour pink at this stage, or I will be jumped on.
        Of course my experience informs my views, must as yours informs yours. Or is my experience not valid?

    2. Barry

      See.. That’s what’s called a gross generalisation. It’s like me arguing that you should be banned from having children, because I’ve heard your sister is a bit feckless. Make a mental note for next time you think about whipping out an irrelevant anecdote: not all gay people are all the same.

      1. Rainbow Summerrs

        Yes my experience is limited. But it is still my experience. My sister is gay and I have two close friends who are gay. I have lots of acquaintances that I know are gay and I’m sure more who are but of which I am unaware. My sister and one of the close friends live lives that exclude straight people. They are obsessed with rights and exclusions but in my experience a lot of the time they exclude themselves. And they are unite narcissistic which I have concluded is the result of living with someone who is so like yourself there is little room for compromise or pluralism. My second friend is not like that at all. She works in a challenging job in a very mixed environment and I think that has stretched her thinking. That is my view. Am I allowed a view? A I allowed base a view on my own experience? And why do you say you feel sorry for my sister? Why would I not choose the sibling with experience over the sibling with none? Or am I supposed to favour her because she is gay? Wy don’t you read m post again. Jeeze, some people jump to conclusions.

        1. Rainbow Summers

          That was directed to the person who feels sorry for my sister? I feel sorry that she has no interest in children.

    3. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

      You raise some pertinent issues that do need to be addressed and not dismissed. Children need a loving comforting family environment. It may be unpopular to say it but the traditional family unit best meets the needs of a child. And one is not homophobic if one says so. Homosexual and lesbian marriage is not normal union and without regardless of what is said such unions are not designed to procreate or bring a child or children in. That is axiomatic.

  19. Stephen Cummins

    A few points struck me as odd here:

    I am a father myself and my “rights” to my child are less important to me than the commitment and love I give to my child. It is not about the state or the church or whoever enforcing those rights.

    The dystopian nightmare he describes of gay people stealing children sounds a lot like Ireland in the last century where the church and state placed unmarried mothers in institutions (Magdaleine/Asylum/Institutions/Laundries) where they were used as slave labour and their children sold to the highest bidder. We hare trying to move away from that nightmare, and we have, he needn’t fear we are moving closer to it.

    The perception that the married-for-life, hetrosexual couple is the ideal unit for child rearing does not stand up to any scrutiny. We have infidelity, abuse and all kinds of things harmful to the children in these family units. We used to have a situation where church/state/societal pressure made couples marry and stay together and they could not divorce, or even use contraception to control when or if they have children. That was not an ideal world. Now couples can control when they get pregnant, when they marry or not, and divorce. There is more individual freedom/control and choice. That power was in the hands of the church and state. It is much less so now.

    He seems to two gay people raising a child would not just be bad for the child but for society as a whole, but has no grounds for this assertion. Where does it come from? Why is it not challenged?

    What appears to be at the root of this whole tirade is a hatred of those who want more freedom and rights to marry and have families. If anything, he’s more anti-marriage than his opponents.

    1. Sgt. Bilko

      What’s lurking behind this is the fear or belief, for want of better words, that gay men will inevitably sexually abuse children if given the chance, and that paedophilia and male homosexuality are inseparably intwined.

      Of course, it doesn’t stand up. Insofar as paedophiles exhibit a secondary sexual orientation, it disproportionaly tends towards heterosexuality.

  20. Amo

    I find the most ironic thing about this discussion, in so far as John Waters tries to merge the discussion of gay marriage and fathers rights, and it’s that for a devout Catholic there was a very simple solution for him – he should have insisted on marrying before he got her pregnant! Then he’d have all the parental rights he wants. Simples.

  21. Clampers Outside!

    I love where he predicts the downfall of civilization in the next 50 to 70 years ….caused by gay couples adopting.

    I for one look forward to our new gay overlords. As Flash Gordon says… ‘Dales with me!’ den-den-den-den-den-den-den-den-den… Awwwww-haaaaaaa!

  22. Baffled by your ignorance

    Wow. Clearly a misogynist as well as everything else you could call him.

    Firstly, any fathers rights advocates must be cringing that he’s putting his case for bigotry next to their case for fair treatment. Also anyone would think adoption was as easy as doing an online Tesco shop based on this. It’s not it’s very hard and there’s good reasons for that. Gay parents won’t get an easier ride than anyone else.

    To back up my accusation of misogyny lest I be sued, it’s evident in the fact that the only women in John’s version of events seem to be just vessels to be impregnated by vulnerable young straight men before they run off seemingly to collude with gay males (perhaps even brothers!) who themselves have only formed a union as an elaborate exercise in spite against straight males. “Hahaha we’ve got all the children and you have none! The elaborate ploy has worked!” All his language refers to either buggery, sodomy or ‘Mickey fiddling’(!) It’s all deeply paranoid and fear based rambling. He has forgotten about two very important things LOVE and LESBIANS, I’d say he’s missing the L pages of his dictionary but he’s clearly familiar with LIBEL. Love, John, in all it’s simple glory is the motivation behind all people wanting to marry one another. (Sorry for using emotive language, I know how distasteful you must find it) The love between a gay couple is equal to love between two straight people (not brother and sister, just to clarify) Not all gay couples want to get married, not every married couple wants to adopt, or even have children, again gay couples are equal to straight couples in this regard. All gay people do want to have equal rights though. Very importantly if you’re going to actively try to deny women the right to marry each other then at least pay the courtesy of acknowledging them in your argument. You don’t represent straight white males, you are a very small and increasingly embarrassing minority within that demographic.

  23. Napper Tandy

    UCD isn’t the most liberal and broad minded University. It’s steeped in faux conservative Irishness and Catholicism.

    Thank God for the fornicators in Trinners to balance things off!

  24. Paul

    I’m surprised nobody has picked up on the subtle homophobia of the so called interviewer in this. He is showing zero impartiality and is just agreeing with everything waters is saying. In fact he is basically encouraging him.

    1. zackersetu

      I agree! but maybe he had a ‘methodist’ to his madness! …sorry… gratuitous punnage. Not making a point, just a pun!! (or am I????)

    2. Mr. Snrub

      I think it’s more that he’s leading him to be a bit more revealing than he normally would be in an interview.
      In fairness he’s not the one being interviewed either so whether he’s stating his own true opinions or not isn’t as relevant as whether or not he’s steering the interview in the right direction.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        “leading” John…. no way.

        Just in case that line is used in some sort of weird defence later (I wouldn’t put it past him) we should all remind ourselves the man is too long in the tooth to claim to be lead on.
        He speaks on professionalism in journalism and is a media commentator on such matters.

        Under no circumstances can the excuse of ‘I was lead on’ or ‘that was an informal interview’ or other such nonsense be allowed to be pleaded by Waters.

        1. Alex Lawes

          No I’m just saying he looks to be using the technique to get a bit more out of him, perhaps not knowing John’s well used to blowing the gaffe on himself and wouldn’t have needed any such encouragement.

      2. Peter

        I know James, and he is not a homophobe at all. He did what any good features journalist does: encourage the subject to relax and be open about their true feelings. It’s perfectly acceptable to take a non-adversarial approach to features: think Louis Theroux, for instance, who puts his subjects at ease (and no, before you say it, I’m not comparing James to Louis Theroux, but the same principles apply).

          1. Peter

            I would imagine that is because, right or wrong, an editorial judgement was made at the time that quotes were too upsetting or offensive.

        1. Paul

          Writing features doesn’t mean you throw the rule book out the window and join in with the subject in sounding like a homophobe. Grannell in response to Waters when he suggests people who advocate gay marriage have nothing to say on adoption: “it doesn’t really come into their conversation”. He goes on to put his own opinion into the interview later. This completely goes against all rules of impartiality in journalism. Writing a ‘feature’ doesn’t excuse him of that. An interview is an interview. For example, you wouldn’t hear Louis Theroux when talking to a racist group “it doesn’t really come into THEIR conversation”. Same rules apply. It’s all discrimination. If this guy Grannell is now working for a real publication, that publication should probably listen to this interview and re consider renewing his contract. Appalling, biased, amateur, lowest form of sneering ‘journalism’ I have ever heard. If this is what colleges are putting out there today then there’s no hope for real journalism in the future. By the way Grannells awful approach doesn’t excuse waters at all. He is 1000% times worse.

          1. Peter

            He was a student journalist, working for free on a college paper, and he took an approach to interviewing. I’d genuinely like to see this rulebook of journalism. It’s the job of a journalist to put the subject at ease; in the case of features, an adversarial approach is not always the best one.

          2. droid

            That was more or less my reaction (see waaay above), but reading the comments here and looking at the results, I think he was being very sly about extracting Waters’ bile rather than actually sympathising with him.

          3. bobsyerauntie

            I personally think that the journalist obtained this interview by lulling waters into the belief that he was talking to a homophobic comrade…

            if so … brilliant journalism…

            if not…

            feck it…

            least we have the interview to prove a few things…

            Team Panti :)

  25. Tomás O'Brádaigh

    And this “non-homophobe” got our taxpayers from RTE as compensation- this article alone shows he does not believe in equality & actively advocates for discrimination against homosexuals… in ireland 2014 wher do these dinosaurs come from? ….. and who exactly do they think they represent?

  26. john caabs

    One day when john is old and his flowing mane is but a wispy memory, he will then realise, none of this matters one fcuk!!!! In the meantime he will continue to be irrelevant, no matter how he tries.

  27. John Long

    Who ACTUALLY cares about this guys opinion? Homoxuals like everyone else just want to get on with their lives free fromprejudice,hate & inequality …. far more worrying is why RTE decided to hand over a handful of taxpayers cash to him!

    1. Peter

      Agreed. His opinion doesn’t matter, but it is relevant in the context of having taken 40k from the taxpayer.

        1. Pedanto

          It’s shorthand for homoChristuals, people who believe that the gospels have anything to say about human sexuality.

  28. Anne Dublin

    Definitely deserved our taxpayers cash being given to him by RTE based on those archaic “non-homophobic” views …..luckily like IONA he is irrelevant & Panti has proved to be a winner on all fronts- dignity,intellect,style and winner of hearts & minds.

    1. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

      Rory O’Neill is a libeler. He, not RTE or the licence holders, should have paid the Euro 85K in defamation and damages and costs for his mean spirited attack against Waters et al that was so was evident on RTE. The station footed the bill for his rant, which had no dignity, style or intellect and showed his hatred for those who genuinely do not believe that homosexual or lesbian unions can be marriages as properly understood in the traditional sense.Yet, on the boards at the Abbey he libeled no-one as he would have had to pay the costs for defamation.

  29. Shelly

    He can’t get politicians to back his campaign for fathers rights? No wonder, he’s doing that campaign absolutely no favours. He’s a poisoned dose

          1. Pedanto

            Your attempt to redefine people’s anger as bullying is stupid and doomed.

            People are angry at Waters and co. because they took public money in a defamation case rather than arguing their points. People are mocking them because their point is crappy and, in JW’s case at least, ludicrously badly expressed.

            If you think being disapproved of on the internet is the penthouse suite of bullying, you need to check with some actual victims rather than blub about four or five wealthy ideologues getting their hair mussed.

  30. Bogman

    You have made yourself clear. Bullying on the internet is ok. Don’t fall into the mistake of trying to tell people when its ok to feel bullied or not. Its a bit like homophobia.

    1. Shanti

      Please lay out your case for bullying.

      If someone has been making nasty comments about you or your group for years, comments that have been published in print media and served to validate the violence of others against you, and you stand up and say “feck off out of my life” – how exactly are you bullying them?

      Calling out homophobia for what it is, is like reporting bullying to the teacher. Those trying to claim that they now are the victims are no better than that school bully trying to claim that they are the victim when they’ve been making a sector of the classes lives a misery and telling lies about them.

      It’s pathetic. They’ve been dishing it out for years, but like all bullies – they can’t hack it when their victim stands up and says “enough!”

    2. bobsyerauntie

      @bogman

      Hardly bullying,

      Waters et al – have had massive voices in the Irish media for decades…
      they have been free to spew hatred, venom, prejudice, and other crap, at the Irish public for years, with little or no recourse…

      They just didn’t imagine that a wonderful invention called the internet would come along and level things out a bit…

      If he wants to reclaim a shred of credibility, give back the money, and apologize for the utterly reprehensible interview above..

  31. Bogman

    Name calling, belittling, mocking, insulting, – and all anonymously- This is called bullying in any language or any forum . Obviously you see it as deserved revenge and therefore justified bullying. Fair enough, just dont say its not bullying.

    1. Breda Quinn

      It won’t be popular in this hate mob, but I want to applaud Mr Ogman for standing up against the culture of anonymity. If Bernard (or Brian) is willing to put his name to his little bulletins, then it behooves the rest of you to follow suit.

      Well done!

      1. Bogman

        Im not the one bullying Breda. Maybe you should focus your archness on them, or maybe you’re ok with that too. Its a shame that this kind of thing taints what most people feel was going to be a great referendum to pass. Well done.

    2. Shanti

      Right Bogman.
      So using your unfettered access to the media to try and steer public opinion toward discrimination against a sector of society based upon a trait that they have no control over DOESN’T count as bullying to you?
      That’s the equivalent if spreading rumours about a kid at school so that everyone will shun them. THAT, is bullying.

      Perhaps you can only see it from one side, perhaps you have failed to see what caused this outburst in the first place (although I doubt that, given the content of this interview). So.. Do you think that ONLY Waters / O Brien / Iona are entitled to their free speech, while those who have legitimate criticisms of the opinions expressed should keep their jumped up notions to themselves?

      Because that is blaming the victim and siding WITH the bully.

      Again I ask you, how exactly is legitimately labelling an irrational aversion to homosexuals as homophobia “bullying”?

      1. Bogman

        Right Shanti. I never said that “legitimately labelling an irrational aversion to homosexuals as homophobia” is bullying Shanti. Name calling, belittling, insulting, sneering, and mocking your opponent is bullying. And the thread above is full of it. Legitimate criticism is a fine thing, but when people cant separate that from hate and invective, they become as bad as their tormentor. The mob mentality and the stoking of it debases the very point they are trying to make.

        As much as I’d like gay marriage to come in (and it will), I think the win will be more cherished if it is won with the dignity it deserves. And with the debate it deserves.

        As for unfettered access to the media- who doesn’t have that?

        1. Shanti

          Ah now, the Internet is full of trolls – we all know that, and it’s something that anyone who is new to the Internet should be made very aware of..

          This is because some people are immature and do resort to name calling and sneering attacks – I mean look at Mr Waters interview there, he’s not exactly a paragon of diplomacy himself..

          It’s a childish and unnecessary form of debate, one that had we all been taught the basics of grammar, logic and rhetoric people would be far less inclined to reach for.

          Sadly that’s not the case. It’s a reflection on our educational standards sadly..

          1. Rainbow Summers

            They don’t or you don’t? Do you speak for everyone?
            What would be wrong with two siblings being in a homosexual relationship? And if they are, and they want to marry, why not?

          2. Shanti

            Do you see any siblings campaigning for the right to marry?

            No, me either..
            Therefore, to bring it into the debate is a red herring – by definition, as a red herring is a logical fallacy, this argument is irrational. It has as much to do with this debate as the EU fishing quotas do.

            So, why bring something entirely irrelevant into an argument if not to try and delegitimise homosexual unions? Are you trying to suggest that gay people marrying is on par with incest?

          3. Rainbow Summers

            It’s relevant to the debate because we are talking about consenting sexual relationships between adults and I was wondering are there any limits, or if so what would they be? There have always been incestuous hetero relationships so any not homosexual? Or is that taboo. This is a genuine question.

          4. Shanti

            No Rainbow, it’s not relevant to the debate.
            As I already said, no one is asking for incestuous relationships to be formally recognised. If they do, we can discuss it then, until then – try to stay on topic because the use of a red herring like this doesn’t do anyone any favours. It just makes you look like you are trolling.

          5. Rainbow Summers

            Or is this just a little club of people who share a view but are not prepared to explain it? You wl get nowhere if you keep bashing people like me who are actually going to vote yes. If you won’t engage in debate and acknowledge that politics is the art of persuasion your bubble will burst just as soon as another cool cause raises its head. Sorry if truth hurts.

  32. Rainbow Summers

    Why do you say that Caroline? Lots of people might think Panti was dropped on his head but are afraid to open their mouths these days. And before you have a go, I thought his speech was powerful, persuasive and enlightening. Unlike a lot of the blogosphere so-called debate. If a man loves a man who dresses as a woman with fake body parts, why can’t a woman fall in love with her sister?

    1. ando

      Rainbow you make a valid point, I had this discussion today that if we are on about equal rights for everyone then siblings could make a case for marriage if they so desired. This is something I wouldn’t like to see happening but a case could be made.

  33. Rainbow Summers

    You need to understand that a lot of straight people don’t get it. Just don’t get a sexual attraction between two people of the same sex. I know marriage used not be allowed between cousins because of the fear of in breeding. Is it still prohibited? I don’t know. If having children is not an issue, ie between people of the same seed, then puma boy there is no need to ban marriage between cousins, or siblings. I think that is a reasonable question. Why ,it’s I have been dropped on my head to ask it? Are you incestophobic? Or is it ok to be phobic about incest?

    1. Rainbow Summers

      Oops, predictive text playing tricks. Above should read same sex, presumably… Not sure where puma boy came from sorry!

    2. bobsyerauntie

      Incest is a completely different thing, you are talking through your hoop…

      @rainbow summers

      You say a lot of straight people just don’t get an attraction between people of the same sex?

      this is nonsense, most straight people do understand same sex attraction. It would be a very small minority that have never had even the mildest attraction to a member of the same sex. Most heterosexuals, in surveys, such as Kinsey’s scale etc.. they admit having had varying degrees of homoerotic experiences. Sexuality is a huge spectrum, it’s not black and white…

  34. Caroline

    This is the Chris Barry phone show, we’ll be back after the break with Rainbow who’s asking “What’s the actual problem with incest in anyway?”

    1. ando

      Your avoiding the question, if no kids are involved whats your issue, I thought you were all for equal rights?

    2. Rainbow Summers

      What is your problem Caroline? I am reasoning the arguments. If I have a gay relationship with my cousin is that ok? Where does equality stop? Is it all consenting adults unless they are related? How close does a relationship have to be to rule out marriage? You may laugh but this will be a question that will have to be answered. I think personally you can’t draw the line on any basis other than age. If we are serious about equality and equal human rights.

        1. Rainbow Summers

          Talking to myself here perhaps but you might look at http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_prerequisites_for_marriage.html
          Where the relationships where marriage is not allowed are listed. For example, I not thati cannot marry my husbands sisters son, even though there is no blood relationship. Yet it is quite possible that I might have a sexual relationship with him. He’s a bit of a ride actually, now that I think of it. He’s actually older than me , by a year. And we get on great. But if hubby pops his clogs or leaves me. I can’t marry the gorgeous nephew.

          1. bobsyerauntie

            @rainbow summers..

            if you’re so concerned about the rights of incest and marriage then why don’t you start your own pro-incest rights group?… ya never know, wait 2000 years and maybe you will finally get your rights respected? …

          2. Shanti

            “Reasoning the arguments”
            This is a contradiction in terms.. How is engaging in fallacious rhetoric anything whatsoever to do with reason?

  35. bobsyerauntie

    So when is RTE going to get their money back?

    Personally, I am disgusted with the comments Waters makes about gay people in this interview. I would imagine these views are the tip of the ice berg. That’s what makes it even more disturbing…

    The homophobes talk about denying marriage an adoption rights to gays…

    well how about denying them on the basis of a homophobic attitude?…

  36. Caroline's Good Friend, Baroline

    Great post Caroline. These concern trolls need a good poking with a stick. Chin up hun.

  37. Caroline's Sexy Nephew

    Half-hearted slippery slope arguments are the worst. If there’s one thing that makes my enormous pectoral muscles and handsome features twitch in anger, it’s logical fallacies. And if there’s two things, then it’s logical fallacies and transparent sock puppetry.

  38. Rainbow Summers

    A I understand it for something to be defamatory it needs to be
    - published, check
    - the person needs to be identifiable, check
    - the statement needs to be inaccurate, check ?
    - the statement needs to be injurious to their good name. Check?

    The questions eels to be about the definition of homophobic. Wile Panti was clever about this, he wasn’t really accurate. I think homophobic is inaccurate as it implies a medical condition, like agoraphobia or claustrophobia or arachnophobia. The spider does not decide who is arachnophobia, the person does by virtue of his involuntary reaction. Calling someone homophobic is indeed a strong statement. Base on the interview above, I think it’s true and accurate i n Waters case, but perhaps mot in others, where the term is being bandied about these days.

    Night night Caroline,

    1. Shanti

      Perhaps you should learn a bit more about what the term homophobia is supposed to mean. The man who came up with the term was George Weinberg. The reason he chose the term was to imply that the issue was not with gay people, but with those who held irrational prejudices against them.

      Here, let him explain it to you..
      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2253328

  39. Rainbow Summers

    Yes I think thatis a good definition. But I’ve heard homophobic applied to people asking pretty relevant questions in amild manneredway. A hetero person does not understand being gay. Most hetero people don’t even think about it that much. But if, say, I come on here and ask questions I am called a homophobe and a troll, and other things.
    What is wrong with incest if no children are being created? That is as valid a question as what is wrong with homosexualityt. I sits sexual attraction between two consenting adults.

    Aid you think I am talking about an incest lobby think again. I am simply giving you a sample of the kinds of questions that will emerge when the debate really gets going and I think you would be naive not to be ready.

    Some people here have very closed minds. If you (the gay community of individuals) want rights you are going to have to be very clear , very patient and much more tolerant than you have shown to date.

    Yawn, I’ve had enough of it anyway. Show me the ballot paper, I wl tick yes, and get on with not caring much one way or the other where adults get or give their love.

    1. jean

      Not sure why you’re banging on and on about incest but anyway, one of the major issues with incest aside from inbreeding, is consent. The reason there’s such a taboo against incest is because it so often involves a lopsided power dynamic (father/daughter, older brother/younger brother, weird aunt/sexy nephew etc) and sexual contact before the age of consent.

      You’re right that questions about incest will probably come up during the referendum debate, because stupid people who can’t understand the difference between a consenting relationship between two equals, and relationships such as incest/polygamy/bestiality will keep asking about it. The supporters of gay marriage will respond as people have here above – a gay marriage is between two consenting adults who are equal partners in the relationship, just like in a straight marriage. Not a gay person and their little brother, not a gay person and five other people, not a gay person and a horse. Comparing gay relationships to unequal and dysfunctional relationships is on the homophobic spectrum, in my opinion.

      I see where you’re coming from Rainbow, but your sweeping generalisations about what gay people are like and what straight people think aren’t helping your argument.

      1. William taylor

        Waters has done a great service to mapping the way the media with the extremist homosexual and lesbian groups are hijacking the debate and the concept of marriage. It was refreshing to read how clearly and well Waters pur across society’s betrayal of the venerable institution of marriage, a union of a man and woman, for a perverted version. By the way St Augistine is still one of the most important Fathers of the Church and is also one of the Doctors of the Church. To say otherwise is a lie but that is what homosexual marriage is anyway so it is keeping in tone with the debate against Waters. Once again our Catholic Church leaders are abandoning their role with the notable exception of the Dominican preachers who published Alive! Yes the child abuse scandal etc is a disgrace and the clergy and nuns involved together with their superiors must be fully held to account. But that is a seperate topic.

        1. Breda Quinn

          At last, a lick of sense in this debate. The churchmen who raped children and the superiors who faciliated those terrible crimes must and may be held to account. But when the subject is NOT child abuse, we should be prepared to accept their moral teachings with humility and grace.

          1. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

            The Bible, both and the Old Testament and New Testament, are predicated on the 10 commandments. Jesus warned towns in Israel that refused to heed his teaching, that God’s anger would fall even harder on them that the homosexual and permissive cities, as the former should have known the true word of God. Jesus came to uphold the commandments not do away with them. He offered a new covenant, sealed by his passion and death, to all people to turn from sin and follow his teaching. And that did away with divorce which God had allowed the Jews under the law of Moses. To be clean of mind and body is the demand made of all by Christ.St. Paul encouraged people to be single and not marry as celibacy was a higher calling if done for God. Heterosexuals who did not marry must lead respectable lives are abstain from sex outside of marriage. And marriage is, under God’s law, the union of a man and woman, both of whom leave their parents to live together in a union blessed by God. It is Natural Law.

            The sins of the clergy will be judged by the Lord who will hold each cleric to full account for their evil sins and none shall be spared. The Church was made for God, and those who used it for personal gain or satisfaction or who covered up abuse will answer to God for what they did.

      2. ando

        I think you should read what you have written before posting. Rainbow said incest between 2 consenting adults over the legal age obviously. It is a legitimate argument, if you bang on about equal rights then you have to consider everybody.
        Tom Daley’s boyfriend is over double his age so go figure.

        1. jean

          And you should read my comment properly. I said one of the issues with incest is because it ‘so often’ involves lack of consent (not always). The reality is that sexual relationships between close relatives often involve abuse. That’s one of the reasons that incest isn’t legal – because legitimising incestuous relationships would give abusers greater freedom to groom their victims.

          I don’t see what Tom Daley has to do with anything, his boyfriend isn’t related to him is he?

          1. ando

            Tom Daley a teenager boyfriend pushing 40.

            It can be between siblings of a similar age, I agree incest is not right but it gives a legitimate argument to the case, if you start banging on about equal rights this is what could happen.

            Dont forget homosexual acts were illegal till 93 just over 20 years ago, and if you say 2 people over the age of consent who love each other should be allowed marry irrespective of their sexuality then this could include everybody. If you dont agree this could be seen as intolerance.

          2. Pedanto

            Oh stop it. “If you don’t agree with this point that no-one is making, some other hypothetical people might accuse you of intolerance.” If that’s your idea of a useful or entertaining conversation, I don’t envy your friends.

  40. Rainbow summers

    Thought I’d pop in here and review the comments.

    I was not making an argument for incest, nor was I trying to wind anyone up,

    It used to be about gay. Then gay and lesbian. Then gay lesbian bisexual transsexual. Now I see in Sydney it’s GLBTIQ.
    I guess the I is inter sex. What is q?

    I was just pointing out that marriage is denied to other consenting adults. Like a person with mental illness. So, eg, even if gay marriage is available, Stephen Fry could be excluded.

    You do need to be clear aout what you are looking for.

    Anyway I will keep away from these blogs from now on since they seem to be nothing but mutual admiration societies. One question before I leave. Ive never been to the George, can straight people go there?

    Oh and one other booing for bobsyourauntie…. You said most people have experienced a sexual attraction to a pson of their own gender. Tt is probably true. A fleeting attraction is quite different to taking it further to a relationship. I have felt fleeting attractions to lots of people, including female friends, but I don’t act on them, because they might be inappropriate or just plain wrong. Eg the person might be married or not available to me. Even though we might have great sex. It’s all about choices and meeting the right person really I think. The luck of life.

    Good luck everyone. I might pop back to see how you all are. And to see if you’ve learned anything aout how to dispel the tyranny of the majority. Start by listening and engaging perhaps?

    That’s the only way you’re going to get this through. If you want to. Imagine, nothing else to victimise you! X darlings.

      1. mj

        I have come to the conclusion that this Rainbow commenter is just a troll who is deliberately posting really stupid things to wind people up. ‘What is the Q?’. ‘Stephen Fry can’t get married’. LOL.

  41. Djanett

    Completely agree with the commenter above who stated:
    “….Also it didn’t seem like an interview but rather a cozy chat.”

    Whoever this interviewer is- He’s awful. He sat back and allowed Waters to walk away with the whole interview. He didnt even attempt to confront him or tackle him, did nothing but agree with every word he said like a timid pup…. what value is an interview like this if the interviewer isn’t capable or willing to tackle the views or issues at hand and get his hands dirty? Awful journalism, basically didn’t provide us with any answers we couldn’t have gotten from a quick google search of Waters backround.

    1. jean

      If he had ‘confronted and tackled’ him, he wouldn’t have got the story that’s above. He encouraged Waters to speak freely and give himself away. I think he did the right thing.

  42. Anne

    Does this guys opinion even matter as I doubt anyone agrees with him- his style is taht of a petulant child denied his toys.

    more worrying is why RTE paid him taxpayers money!!!!!!

  43. Rainbow Summers

    What is a troll?
    We’re probably all trolls here really.
    I’d love to see the lgbtiq lobby using the political system in a way that will actually achieve change.

    You have to know where people are coming from and reach out to them.
    Especially when you are in a minority position.

    You have to anticipate the kinds of arguments that will tie you in knots if you are not prepared, like the consanguinity one.

    You need to know very clearly how marriage is defined now, and who is excluded, so you can have a position ready on it.

    Y have to be prepared to listen. Lots of people, knowing you are gay,will be afraid to ask you questions or voice opinions. Lots will pretend to support you to be seen to be cool. Like some of the people here who were so ready to jump down my throat. If i worked with you i would avoid you at the coffee break. This means you will be denied the opportunity to inform and educate.

    And you will have to find a language that people will understand. I believe q stands for queer. LGBTIQ. I thought you couldn’t say queer. I also thought queer was gay or lesbian.

    It’s hard to keep track of all this for those of us who take an interest. Harder for those whose daily lives don’t bring them into contact with this debate. And manna for the opposition.

    And I bet there will be marginal areas where the LGBTIQ community will not all be in agreement. Then it wll be easy for the opposition to divide and conquer the lobby.

    If you don’t like the questions I raise here, and you immediately attack instead of engage, you will put your campaign at risk.

    Verandker just gave an explanation of why Enda should take part in the new york parade. He talked about persuading the AOH to understand that Ireland has changed. This is the only approach that will work.

    Maturity and compromise.

    Lets see how it goes. Soften the position, avoid the hard lines.

    1. Caroline

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

      In a change of heart that you should ignore, I’d like to offer you some well-meant advice. If you really want to disrupt this discussion and force people to direct their full attention to you, you’re going to need to tone it down a little. A bit less of the crazy – it’s a dead giveaway. Don’t force people to do too much homework (googling) for you, especially when you’ve shown you can do it fine on your own when it suits. People don’t like being forced to teach remedial on their lunch break. Oops – that’s a gratuitous dig – and it’s that kind of gratuitous dig that could blow your whole cover story. Don’t stoop to my imaginary level – it’s exactly what I want.

      Stay patient. Stay humble. Grace and beauty. Remember: you’re on our side. You’re voting yes. You just have a few… concerns.

  44. Mandy

    Universal GAYety is Coming !

    Gays are found throughout history. For the first time ever – finally – they’re almost worldwide! Wow!
    This global gaydom is even foretold in the Bible – predicted by Jesus (see “days of Lot” in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).
    And the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the same gay “days” ALL nations will come against Israel and fulfill the “days of Noah” at the same time (see Luke 17 again) – a short time of anti-Jewish genocide found in Zechariah 13:8 when two-thirds of all Jews will die.
    In other words, when “gay days” have become universal, all hell will break loose!
    Shockingly, the same “days” will lead to and trigger the “end of days” – and when they begin, human government will quickly wind down in just a few short years. For the first time in history there won’t be enough time for anyone to expect to live long enough to be able to attend college, have kids and grand-kids, save for and enjoy retirement, etc.
    One final thought. The more we see gays “coming out,” the sooner Jesus will be “coming down”!
    (For more, Google or Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” and “Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality. When gays have birthdays…”)

  45. Jane Aelst

    At it’s simplest level homophobia means fear of homosexual people. According to this definition, John Waters is undoubtedly a homophobe. Additionally phrases such as “buggering each other” are designed to be hurtful. I have lost all respect for the man. In my opinion he hasn’t made a decent movie since Hairspray.

  46. Rainbow Summers

    To Caroline,

    You seem to think I have some kind of agenda. If you are so rude to the curious who come in here to find out more, and to express a view, you will get nowhere with your campaign.

    Society rears people to a set of norms. For society to change, there needs to be leading thinking, and an openness to followers. If you cut off your potential followers you will remain out there, ahead, but separate from others. If you want others to be open to you, a good start would be to try to be more open yourself. Of course it should not be this way, it should be obvious, but that’s not the way the world works and if you wnat to change it, you need to understand a bit more how it works, and then use that knowledge..

    It’ sad but I know lots of people who hide behind the “I’m not homophobic, I just…..” badge. Just like were great in this little country about not being racist. People who intelectually know the human rights argument but have loads of cultural influence trapped inside their hearts.

    If you reject all debate, the debate will not move forward, and media hoggers like Waters will always get airspace.

    Panti is a great start, and You tube hit rates currently at 505,000 views is going nicely. but the woman in Tramore who got hit by the wave is on 700,000 in the same period of time. Not everyone is that interested, and I think to get a referendum passed, you need to get the mildly disinterested over the line.

    You wont do that by trampling on debate here or by having a go at someone like me.

    If you want to change something, you have to acknowledge the current position, and set a path to move from it.

    ““Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

  47. Rainbow Summers

    By the way, interesting link about the concern troll. I will give that some thought. It implies though that I am being hypocritical. I don’t think I am actually. I am a pretty typical ( I deliberately use the term typical instead of normal though the meaning is the same isnt it) Irish person, trying to rationalise all the stuff I was reared with, and change it to meet with where the intellectual thinking is.

    I do enjoy a good debate, whether in the pub or on here. Havent been called a troll in the pub though. And I don’t meet many gay people in the pub, sadly. Well of course I probably do, just dont know they are.

    Pity, really.

    1. Pedanto

      If you’re genuine, you come across as incredibly condescending. Eighteen paragraphs of advice to people who dont know you is not really conducive to good debate.

      1. Rainbow Summers

        Fair enough, Pedanto. I’ll leave it at that so.

        Best thing about advice is you don’t have to take it.

        Good luck with the campaign.

  48. CMac59 (@CitizenMac59)

    I thought it was a very fair and honest interview and Waters was open and frank about his feelings, whether one agrees with them or not. It is odd to observe how homosexual and lesbian activists constantly accuse others of being bitter and then proceed to make vile comments about anyone and any institution that does not agree with their viewpoint is all too common. Marriage has in the Christian and mainstream religious traditions been solely viewed as the union of a man and woman within a defined social and religious context. Calling such traditionalists nasty names and attributing malice on their behalf says more about the homosexual and lesbian community than it does about those whom they make such claims about. To demand adoption rights before homosexual and lesbian unions qualify as marriage is putting the cart before the horse.

    1. Rainbow Summers

      I await the response to your (fair and accurate) comment with interest! Hope you’re not a sensitive soul!

      1. Rainbow Summers

        by fair and accurate I mean he is entitled to his view. And, at risk of boring Pedanto and others, if you want to change someone’s mind better to engage than to shout.

        We all don’t have to agree with each other. I thought that was what diversity was all about!

  49. bobsyerauntie

    The fact that we are even discussing whether gay people should have equal rights or not is ludicrous. Equal rights should be an automatic entitlement by citizenship. I was born in Ireland, I live here, I have lived here for 37 years, and I think it’s messed up that anyone from the heterosexual majority should feel they can discuss whether I cam capable of parenthood, worthy of parenthood, or worthy of marrying who I choose to love. How dare they. Gay people don’t have a case to prove here, just as Black people didn’t have a case to prove in America in the 60′s or Women in the 20′. We want full equality and we want to be able to live our lives without experiencing prejudice, what is so bloody difficult to understand?

    1. Pedanto

      But how dare you accuse your opponents of being ludicrous? All we want (sob) is a dispassionate debate about how to limit your rights, without any vicious name-calling (sob). How can you be such a bully? Truly the oppressed are now the oppressors. Etc, etc, etc.

  50. Rainbow Summers

    Bobsyourauntie you are absolutely right.

    My contributions above are in the context of the fact that gay people do not currently have equal rights and the status quo will persist if change is not led and communications and channels of influenced not managed effectively.

    In respect of marriage, I think that it is actually not helpful to use racial comparisons. Marriage, for hundreds of years, has been regarded as a union for the purpose of providing a stable social structure to support the biological unit of the family. Family being a mother and father who have sex and produce children.At a broader level society creates structures which support the continuity of the Human Race. Gender difference, in the context of producing children, is not the same as colour skin.

    It is the presumption of both religions and states all over the globe that a man and woman marry and accept the children that arrive. The science of contraception and IVF etc has prompted a broadening of views on marriage and indeed a revolution in views about sex, in particular about sex solely for personal gratification as opposed to procreation. We are only one generation away from the idea of sex being pleasurable for a woman being anything other than a sin.

    Many people still do not believe in IVF, or adoption, or either. Adoption has certainly raised the question of the rights of the adopted child, and as we have see these rights are gradually moving upwards in priority as against the rights of the birth mother and the adopting parents. Birth dads are still down the list and this fact does seem to inspire anger in Mr Waters, perhaps quite rightly. Another question to be debated will be surrogacy, whether voluntary or for profit, and there will be of necessity debate and time and adjustment before we have a societally recognised position on it.

    With regard to rights we are a long way from equality, not just for gay people but for many many other groups. Babies have a right to water and mother’s milk, yet in so may parts of the world this is denied to them. Children have a right to live in a safe and secure environment yet we deny this at a local, national and global level on a regular basis.

    I have a right to pee in the mens urinals but it would be socially unacceptable.

    For a lot of people gay right to marry is somewhere in the middle there. And, a lot of people are uncomfortable with homosexality. It may be beucause of confusion about their own sexuality, it may be because they have had a personal experience which leads them to hold a negative view, whatever, it is there.

    Without a debate and public airing of views this will never move on.

    The fact that people are now afraid to say anything or ask questions lest they be branded homophobic is interesting. You would think that tru homophobes would be proud to speak out as that. Most people do not want to be branded homophobic.

    That, for , offers hope. The White Supremacy people n and the Ancient Order of Hibernians were proud to be racist and mysogynistic.

    If people are ashamed to be called homophobic it is a step forward.

    But you have to allow people speak!

  51. bobsyerauntie

    Hi Rainbow Summers.

    Just to pull you up on a few points, the racial analogy is usually used in regards to illustrating prejudice and how times change, and how racism is now an unacceptable attitude. A far more potent and accurate analogy would be one that I have used before, the comparison of same sex marriage to the intermarriage of Catholic and Protestants. For a long tine in Ireland, this was forbidden. Albeit, it was the Colonial English crown who forbade it, during Ireland’s time as part of the British empire. Catholics, and Irish Catholics in particular, were perceived as inferior, and they had less rights to Protestants. They were not allowed to marry Protestants and interbreeding between the English settlers and the Irish Catholic natives was perceived as degenerate.

    You of course will disregard racist and prejudiced analogies to homophobia, because it is clear from the tone of your comments that you do not even see that the prejudice towards gay people, based on sexuality, is equal to other societal prejudices, such as racism, xenophobia etc. It seems, for some people, the prejudice that gay people experience is a more acceptable form of prejudice. Homophobia, for some, is seen as less damaging.This baffles me, but it’s not surprising given the all pervasive homophobia that exists in society.

    The status quo will not persist, because we are in the process of change. The next generation will see to it that homophobia will not be tolerated.

    Marriage has not always been defined in the terms you describe. It is not defined solely for the protection of children brought about by heterosexual union.

    For hundreds of years, marriage was seen as a way to link families and tribes, marriages were economic arrangements, we see this particularly in the aristocratic class. In the Victorian era, children were not even considered as part of the arrangement, they had little rights also, and were mostly expected to be seen and not heard, for the poor they worked before adolescence and were little more than slaves to adults, the richer kids were raised by nannies, and sent to boarding schools. Even nowadays, children do not automatically have a mother and a father, many many children grow up in single parent families, or between parents as a result of divorce or separation etc. So to claim that there has been this sanctified, idealized heterosexual version of marriage for the protection of children for hundreds of years, is a fallacy, and an false image, which has never had a basis in reality and likely never will.

    Your analogies of babies rights to milk, your right to pee in a urinal, and childrens rights to live in a safe environment as the same as gay rights, are not only poor and out of context , they are absolutely absurd.

    People who are uncomfortable with homosexuality need to question that themselves, it is not up to a gay person to provide an answer to homophobic people. Just as it is not up to a black person to try to understand why a white supremacist hates them. Prejudice based on race, religion and sexuality is the same. It is irrational.

Comments are closed.