Losing Our Natural Sexuality

at

john waters

” When you get on to that first sentence of Article 41, the state recognises the natural primary unit of responsibility in society. You don’t need to go any further than that word natural to understand what a catastrophe this is.

Because the word natural as it stands as interpreted time and time again in court hearings has to do with the biological complementarity of a man and a woman who together in their sexual union beget a child and begin the process of creating a family.

And that word natural will go, it will still be there on Sunday if we get a yes but it will no longer have the meaning it has now.

I was on TV recently and I made this point and the interviewer said ‘Hang on it could be said that what you’re saying is gay sexuality is unnatural’ and I said ‘I’m not saying that I’m saying something completely different’ but that’s an interesting point.

That’s possibly what this will mean. it’s one of the things it could mean, That the sexuality of a gay couple is just as natural as the sexuality of a heterosexual couple. The meaning will slip to that.

….Every couple will have to come down to the level at which they meet, call it the lowest common denominator call it the common denominator, and that would be a level in which biological procreative capacity is irrelevant…”

John Waters of First Families First at a Mothers and Fathers Matter public meeting in Tralee, Co Kerry.

Mr Waters cites the case of  ‘John’, a gay man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple and having had a change of mind was denied any meaningful role in the child’s life.

Yesterday: SurrogateGate

134 thoughts on “Losing Our Natural Sexuality

  1. Jane

    Will nobody censor this man? The issue of natural sexuality (or any other kind) being discussed by John Waters is a bit much for this time of day.

    Joking aside, I’m very suspicious of people who go on about nature when it comes to procreation. It’s like they want women and children to die. When natural childbirth was the only way, maternal and infant mortality rates were horrendous.

    Natural isn’t always – or ever, really – the gold standard.

    1. Drogg

      I don’t know about that now Jane, the over medicalisation of our maternity services have left them in the mess they are currently in. But supported natural birth with access to medical facilities is the best maternity solution but one that is not often used in this country.

      1. Jane

        I’d prefer to take my chances with the medical establishment than try to give birth unaided in a field, if it’s all the same to you.

        1. Drogg

          Really you should hear some of the stories of women having episiotomies and c-sections without anaesthetic, it just might change your mind.

    2. TG

      You’ve unwittingly proved Waters’ point, Jane, by your emotional, angry reply and calling for censoring him. What we need here is an intellectual argument, not emotive outbursts. Also, when people refer to something being natural, they usually mean pro-human-creaturely natural, ie natural things that are beneficial to humans.

      1. Ernie Ball

        That John Waters is what passes for an “intellectual” in this country speaks volumes.

        1. Odis

          “That John Waters is what passes for an “intellectual” in this country speaks volumes”.
          It speaks volumes about your attitude to the people in “this country” – that you suggest such a thing.
          I always thought him a crank – and I suggest most people on Broadsheet do as well.

      2. rotide

        When someone refers to homosexuality as being Unnatural they are completely wrong and ignorant.

        There is homosexuality amongst many species on this planet including humans and it never stopped any species ability to survive.

        It’s natural.

          1. Nially

            We’d just use our constitutional right to procreate to force all the lesbians to make surrogate babies. Duh.

      3. Daz

        What’s TG stand for, Troll Guy?

        You know lies and pretending to care are against the bible right? Because you wouldn’t be balancing one sin against another in the name of Jesus, now would you?

        1. Zarathustra

          I was told by a friend of a friend’s second cousin that Do Dos were gay, and that’s why they became extinct; it had nothing to do with Dutch sailors eating them or introducing animals to their habitat which fed on their eggs, at all.

      4. d4n

        Ok, well that’s your first problem then, anything that happens is natural, if it’s not natural, it can’t happen, that’s how physics works.
        The second problem you’ve got is that if by ‘natural’ you mean ‘occurring without human intervention’ Then either you don’t wear clothes, have a house, a car, the internet, education…. All the things humans have done that don’t occur in nature. Dump them all, and go back to foraging in the wild for food you eat raw under a tree. Or you admit the argument is nonsense, and stop using it.
        Third problem, you seem to think that gay people aren’t beneficial to humans, in spite of the fact of the tonnes of gay people who’ve done amazing things that have affected the entire race, and of course, that equal rights is beneficial to humans, particularly the gay ones.
        Lastly you think that you can be taken seriously calling for an intellectual argument at the same time as inventing the phrase ‘pro-human-creaturely-natural.
        Finally, Waters is happy to use the courts to silence people who say things he doesn’t like, and is either deliberately lying or wilfully ignorant of the topic, people who lie and/or ignore information that goes against them should be censored.

  2. Mysterymeat

    If he says ‘gay sexuality ‘ is abnormal, is that not pretty much the definition of homophobia?

    He is just such an awful person.

    1. Mister Mister

      And that everyone will have to come down to the lowest common denominator if the referendum is passed. What a sap.

    2. rotide

      No it’s not. If he says it’s unnatural then yes it is but it is abnormal, just as lefthandedness and red hair is abnormal. It’s natural, but not the norm.

      1. rotide

        I realise that but It shouldn’t be.

        Different and Normal should not be dirty words. Just as with racism, a lot of it comes down to context.

        Johnny mind you uses the word natural, not normal, so open season on him

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          No, they aren’t. But words have power and people choose the words they use because of that. He knows exactly what he is saying by using ab/normal and un/natural in this context.

          1. rotide

            Im with you on un/natural but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree on ab/normal.

            It’s like when the young people decided the word ‘meet’ meant something different and confused the hell out of me for years.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Respectfully? What? :)

            It depends on the context, you’re right. ie your liver function is abnormal is not great news but it doesn’t have the same connotations as someone saying as gay people are abnormal.

      2. Nigel

        For feck’s sake, if you go around calling people abnormal, you’re being insulting, hurtful or completely heedless. If you mean ‘relatively rare’ say that. Don’t call them abnormal. It’s the opposite of respectful.

      3. d4n

        Abnormal carries a connotation of undesirable, whether or not it should is irrelevant, it does. And Waters intends it that way.

  3. Matt

    I wish John could understand that the love I have for my partner feels as natural and as human and as right to me as I imagine anyone else’s love to be. Just because he is male doesn’t mean my love for him is lesser than the love John would feel for his partner. I wish those on the No side would at least acknowledge and respect that, if they care so much about human dignity.

  4. Sinabhfuil

    The question faced by those “denying the rights” of the sperm donor to a meaningful place in his child’s life is nothing to do with the man or his rights; it’s to do with the child’s needs, and whether a relationship with this man would serve the child well.

      1. PhilJo

        As I understand it the law’s position on granting rights to a biological parent are, and would remain regardless of the outcome of the referendum, based on the best interest of the child in question.

    1. Jane

      And I guess that’s a legitmate question in some respects – which of us are suitable parents whose children are enriched by our presence? Who knows? But I note that it’s a question that’s only being asked in one context, which makes me suspicious. If we really were serious about this, we migh scrutinise all parents to find out whether they were a fit presence in their child’s life. But we don’t. We might force all parents to be invovled in their child’s life. But we don’t. We would ban one night stands that result in pregnancy. But we don’t.

      The fact that some people only want to discuss this in a very narrow context relating to one sex and one type of sexuality should raise eyebrows and make people wonder about agendas.

    2. Nigel

      Well, no. Or not just that. Nobody is well served by slipshod, non-legally binding handshake agreements-between-friends. There needs to be an established framework of rights and responsibilities established that will benefit and protect everyone involved, especially the child, and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS REFERENDUM though that doesn’t mean it isn’t both important and tricky. But feck that ‘natural’ balderbollocks.

  5. Gavin

    Yes the whole country is wrong, we are all being blindly led up the garden path, we are just a bunch of uninformed children and we shouldn’t be allowed vote…..You arrogant twit. Every time this man opens his mouth I am more strongly to inclined to vote YES

  6. 评论员

    JUST CAUSE WATER SHIP DOWNS HERE HAS LOST HIS “procreative capacity”, IT DOESN’T AFFORD HIM THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT OUT TEH GAYS

  7. The People's Hero

    With the amount to slippery slopes this clown slides down, he must not have an arse left in his scaldy* kecks…..

    *having seen how/where this man lives in a documentary a few years back, hygene does not seem high on his priorities….

  8. collynomial

    Natural it’s such a great word. It’s used to mean normal, where the norm is derived from what happens in nature. Homosexuality has been documented in a wide variety of animals including giraffes, ducks, dogs, dragonflies and bearded dragons.

    I cannot comment with authority on the court’s interpretation of the word Natural; but if what John Waters says is correct it is clear that if the court interprets that word in a very narrow frame. In any case the constitution of Ireland is a living document and if the courts interpret “natural” to also be inclusive of homosexual couples that requires no legislation or constitutional change, it just is.

    Regardless of this, the idea that the word ‘natural’ would slip already betrays John Water’s feelings on the issue. It’s just a cloaked argument that the referendum would “change the definition of marriage”. Since this argument has already lost steam and pervasive power, he’s making it again from a new angle.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmyZoFChDOQ

    1. me

      As Foucault had it, “What desire can be contrary to nature, since it was given to man by nature itself?”

      1. Serval

        You’re forgetting about the desire to bungee jump while wearing polyester reading glasses.

    2. TG

      “Homosexuality has been documented in a wide variety of animals including giraffes, ducks, dogs, dragonflies and bearded dragons.”

      So say leftist propaganda documentary makers with an agenda. In reality, animals mount a same-sex “partner” to show domination or they get the scent of a female off the other creature. If animals can be gay, then my dog Rex is a sofafile, cause he often mounts the arm of the couch. The world really is upside down.

      1. ZeligIsJaded

        He mounts the arm of the sofa?

        The unnatural hound. Put it down.

        It’s an aberration.

      2. yrtnuocecnareviled

        Asexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, hermaphrodites, drones, clones and whatever you’re having yourself, that’s how nature rolls.
        Shout at your garden, tell the snails and the bees they’re doing it wrong.

  9. 15 cents

    keep hearing this argument about a yes vote passing, will change wording in legal documents and/or in court language. so effin what! why are these legal descriptions so effin important to these people? how often are they reading these things that theyre so special to them? so some words in a legal doc change .. but thousands of people then get equal rights and dont feel outcast .. but no .. eff their happiness, some clowns dont want a word in a legal document changed .. ridiculous. but its not that, its not that they are precious over the wording of legal docs, its just something they are trying to use as a reason so they dont just say “i dont like gay people and the idea of them getting married is horrid”

  10. Starina

    “the sexuality of a gay couple is just as natural as the sexuality of a heterosexual couple. The meaning will slip to that.”

    There you have it. He thinks homosexuality is unnatural. That, by definition, makes him a homophobe.

    1. Odis

      Homosexuality is, by definition, a biological dead end. From the Darwinian perspective, its a complete waste of time.
      Does that make me and Charles Darwin homophobes?

        1. Odis

          What’s like or dislike got to do with a basic scientific concept?

          You seem to be confused.

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            I’m not sure you fully understand biology Odis. Gay people can still have kids, they are not sterile.

          2. Odis

            I’m not sure you understand anything Don.
            Wow you mean modern science has found different ways to reproduce organisms sexually – sure this is news! – When did this happen? Who knew?

            What’s up chuck? Didn’t the nuns do Evolution with you?
            I know – its difficult.

          3. Mysterymeat

            Not at all. Leaving aside your misunderstanding of the biology (as explained elsewhere), homophobia means a ‘hatred’ of homosexual people because of their intrinsic homosexuality. As such, if you don’t like homosexual people because they are homosexual, you are a homophobe.

          4. yrtnuocecnareviled

            “Survival of the Fittest”
            Does that mean Kelly Brooks will live forever?

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        But it isn’t. Gay people can still have kids. A biological dead-end would only exist if gay people also couldn’t make sperm or eggs.

      2. Drogg

        Odis as a species we have evolved above the simple male/female procreation partnership, we create far to many offspring that far to high a number are discarded (i know that is a horrible way to put it i am just using it to frame what i am saying) so having married gay couple that can adopt these children and give them loving homes where they will be raised and educated is actually beneficial to the species overall.

      3. JimmytheHead

        Thats not true Odis, sperm and eggs can be gather from 2 homosexual couples and used to reproduce. Dead end me hole. Find another way to be a bigot plz thx

        1. Odis

          Oh yeah – so it is me an Charles Darwin then? This adds new significance to the term “knuckle draggin’ bigot”

          1. Odis

            @ Jimmy – They (Iona) should hire me for a nominal fee (and expenses) m8

            Check out my “homosexuality is a congenital mutation” – stuff below.

            I could be David Owen’s Mr. Spock FFS.

      4. Stewart Curry

        Not if you’re helping your siblings raise their kids. Or making or having babies on your days off or to help people out.

      5. Jane

        Are you putting words in Charles Darwin’s mouth there or did he say anything like “stop the gays from getting married, they’re due to become extinct anyhow becuase of natural selection even though they keep getting born to hetrosexual parents”?

        1. Odis

          I’m not putting words in Charlie’s mouth. Check it out for yourself. It might involve thought though.

          As for mutations being transmitted through parents, who do not appear to have these mutations They carry them in the recessive. This is quite normal. Transmission in the recessive is one of the pathways of evolution. The less successful mutations are weeded out by nature. (look up Gregor Mendel for basic information on this)

          As for homosexuality it is a biological dead end.

          Presumably, homosexuality is a congenital mutation. Maybe at some stage in the future, medical science will be able to correct the problem, should people affected by it wish to become hetrosexual.

          1. JimmytheHead

            I’d threaten you with the chance of having gay children and saying that to them… but you have to find someone desperate to reproduce with you first

          2. Ultach

            Surely nonreproduction is the deadend, whether by choice or circumstance. Gay people can reproduce heterosexually if they want.

          3. Nigel

            Evolution is a process. There is no destination, no end-point, no ultimate goal. There’s no social or moral value attached to something being a ‘biological dead-end’ even if it were true, which it isn’t now, thanks to technological and medical advances, and may never have been, since we have always had homosexuals amongst us.

      6. rotide

        Odis, the clue is in the name of the book. The evolution of the SPECIES.

        If you were talking about two people in a vacuum then yes, homosexuality would by definition be a biological dead end but thats not how things work. we’re talking about a very large and widespread species.

      7. yrtnuocecnareviled

        Nope, not even the slightest.
        What matters is successfully raising offspring.

      8. collynomial

        That’s a fairly one sided view of homosexuality and Darwinism. I don’t believe you made the point for any reason other than contradict Starina.

        It does little to talk about the Darwinian perspective and a waste of time, because the Darwinian perspective doesn’t take a view on such things. There is no good and bad in Darwinism, there are genetic changes which if they offer the species a competitive advantage become predominant and there are things that stay the same. Evolution has no goals, no rights, no wrongs.

        And when you talk about evolution meaning homosexuality is a waste of time, what you mean to say is that being gay creates obstacles in passing on one’s own genetic information on to the next generation. But as we have evolved to be a societal species, the Darwinian perspective is that society and family offer benefits to the passing on of our genetic information. Your brother or sister in fact shares pretty much the same genetic information as you do, which is half from your mother and half from your father.

        The Gay Uncle hypothesis, suggests that homosexuality is an evolutionary trait, designed to have an extra pair of hands when the family needs to raise children, hunt and gather. Indeed, it has been shown (by science) that the youngest sons of women who bare many children have a higher chance of being homosexual, indicating that once the mother’s genes have had a good chance to passed onto her grandchildren, she begins to produce sons who will be able to reinforce the family support (and ensure her genes are successfully passed on, to her great grand children) by the ‘gay uncle’.

    2. Don Pidgeoni

      Totes. But in his little speech, is he saying I said on TV is wasn’t natural and then someone called me out on that but that’s not what I meant even though that’s what is means?

      He, and I, are confused.

  11. Gavin

    He clearly is not interested in the rights of child, as he claims. He bangs on about a mother being left behind and having no rights if the husband enters a gay relationship which is more financially stable. How her status as the mother has no bearing on the courts. What John is suggesting is that no matter what her situation her status as mother should have a serious bearing on the outcome of the court. This is the very same bullshit he has argued against over the last 10 years, where the mothers rights trump the fathers……the guys brain is Swiss cheese.

    1. ZeligIsJaded

      Disagree with you re his writing on father’s rights.

      There are of course serious issues to discuss in relation to access to children.

      They just have no relevance/bearing whatsoever in relation to this referendum.

      1. yrtnuocecnareviled

        I agree.
        The 1937 constitution as drafted by John Charles McQuaid specifically mentions the role of the mother but not the father.

  12. Drogg

    Ok besides the given evidence that Waters has now proved his homophobia on video. How is a man who is separated from his wife and doesn’t raise his kids leading an organisation that is saying kids can only be raised by a married mother and father? It makes no sense. It is so idiotic it actually hurts my head.

      1. Drogg

        But he doesn’t raise them their primary carer is with their mother. My point is he is the one saying only Married Mothers and Fathers can raise kids when his own domestic situation is far from that, so in essence among everything else he is a huge hypocrite.

          1. Blonto

            Considering he had a child with a woman he wasn’t in a relationship with, it would appear that he isn’t bothered by the traditional family structure for raising children. All very hypocritical of him.

          2. Drogg

            But it does matter what his preference is. What matters is the situation he is in and the one he is in is most defiantly not the definition of what First Families First claim is a “real” family.

          3. Joe the Lion

            Have to say you nailed it there Drogg. The thing is these fupps would literally say anything to try and score a point in debate. You have to put yourself in that frame of mind to see where they are coming from. It’s not a happy place.

          4. Drogg

            But thats what bothers me so much. I worry about the thought pattern of someone like that who is basically arguing against his own lifestyle and just seems to make everyone else as unhappy as he is.

  13. Bob

    Meh, homophobe preaches to homophobic crowd. Nobody would even notice if it wasn’t brought to our attention here, so I say just let him live quietly under his bridge.

    1. Don Pidgeoni

      He probably has quite a lot of influence. Call him out on it I say, if only to show him up for spineless confused idiot he is.

    1. Caroline

      No, he’d love that. Martyr is the role he was born to play. The John the Baptist look isn’t an accident.

      1. scottser

        so we should go biblical? like throw him to the lions? cool, i knows a lad who works up at the zoo..

  14. Tá Frilly Keane

    Jaysus
    You’d think he’d be sh1t sick ov’himself at this stage

    Christ t’night

    1. scottser

      as the saying goes, he should pull on his big girl panties and get over himself.

  15. Daisy Chainsaw

    RTE should look for a refund.

    Sometimes I feel sorry for Waters. It must be an awful life to be so angry all the time… Then I read stuff like this and all empathy disappears for the nasty scruffbag.

      1. Odis

        ” to stay edgy (and employed)” – yeah I think so.
        Though he got canned at the Irish Times for being a complete **** about electronic communication.
        Which was a bit too edgy. Socrates didn’t use email etc.

        I bet he’s brushed up his IT skills and overcome some of his technophobia for the Indie though.

  16. The Bird in the Box

    I’m a biological dead end as well – no kids so far and at an age where that is extremely unlikely to change. should I not be allowed to get married, or is it ok because I’m heterosexual? My sister has fertility problems and won’t be able to conceive without medical intervention, should her marriage be null and void?

    1. Anne

      +1. I’m a heterosexual female of the species with ripe eggs too..(just about) No interest in having any seed fertilised yet .. and the clock is ticking.

  17. Dough Berman

    “… that would be a level in which biological procreative capacity is irrelevant”

    It’s already irrelevant to civil marriage. Sterile men can marry women who’ve had hysterectomies.

    The disingenuous drivel spewed out by this ueber-bore is a wonder to behold.

  18. Danielle

    apart from anything else, I honestly never know what he’s on about. Is this why people think he’s an intellectual? Because he uses many, many words without ever saying anything comprehensible?

  19. Ppads

    So a canterkous old clown with a list of broken relationships feels that long term monogamous same sex couples should not have the right to marry? The best advert for a Yes vote yet.

  20. Anne

    and that would be a level in which biological procreative capacity is irrelevant…

    Would that be like sex for fun?
    Or something like.. how about a little drive up the hersey highway tonight sweetie, just thinking of the cheeeldren ….. we don’t want.

    What a peabrain. His kind shouldn’t procreative. It decreases the national IQ.

Comments are closed.