EVENING ECHO FRIDAY, AIGUST 15TH 2003

Pride Parade is not tickled pink


SEVERAL weeks ago here in the Evening Echo I decided to comment on the Gay Pride Festivities over the bank holiday weekend.

Though I support anyone's free right of association I just didn't see the purposeor need for such an event. Several friends who are gay concurred.

I didn't quite expect the abuse(to use on of their favourite shibboleths) posted on the internet site gaycork.com. There is little as ugly as queers bashing.

Meet the "gay community" and their moral high ground. But wha were the arguments There seems to some Geneva Convention based rule that if one refers to members of the group hen one i susing the "Some of my best friends are..." line.

Of course, that is not what I had written.
I don't nee dto apologise for my positions, especially on homosexuality; the topic has been broached very openly and freely on Cork Talks Back on Red F; serious issues akways recieved open and frank coverage.

What I did say was that my views on people dressing up as nuns or little fairies in lycra did not do the arguments of "gender politics" justice and this was an opinion shared by people who are gay.

Have a party if that is your want, but don't bill it under the banner of "pride"; don't use "pride" as an argument to state you have no choice in your sexuality when in reality, the fact you chose your sexual orientation is what you should be proud of.

I also commented on New York's first "gay high school". As a taxpayer I would have more rights than a homosexual to comment on this as it is state-funded...funded by people like me.

The arguments ad complexities of sexual orientation are a lot more difficult then many homophobes make out to be, but they are also not as simple as the "I was born this way" banner subscribed to by those who call themselves gay.

Un fortunately, the "gay community" is above all this, so they think.

They claim some sort of "protected species status"- "God made us this way so no one has a right to comment.". They can give, but they can't take.

Reading the comments on the gaycork.com site the usual suspects reared their ugly heads "He's a fascist", "bigot" and the inevitable "go home Yank", I can only think what the response would have been had I couched my arguments in the homophobic equivalent.

The response to the Catholic Chruch's recent pronouncements on homosexuality got the same response.

I happen to agree with the Church's position.

I do no think that homosexuality is a proper lifesyle chouce; but I do leave those choices to the individual. It is a situation of loving the sinner, not the sin.

A lot of sophisrty has enterd in place of fact and argument, like the recent letter to the Irish Times who said "God ordained them gay".

Actually, it is pretty simple biology God made them male and female. They have sexual organs, what one does with them is up to the individual.

And yes, some of my best friends are gay.

And how did the "gay community" respond to the Catholic Church In Limerick a church was vandalised with graffiti painted on the exterior walls; this following their pride parade.

Apparently homo- is not the only phobia.

---------------------------------------------------------


Well, it seems Charlie still cannot distinguish between homosexual acts and homosexuality.

Originally posted by Slayer
[I also commented on New York's first "gay high school". As a taxpayer I would have more rights than a homosexual to comment on this as it is state-funded...funded by people like me.

Last I heard, there wasn't an automatic queer tax exemption clause.. we are every bit as much taxpayers as anyone else

Is this real or a joke ?
On the original thread someone came up with the suggestion that anyone
who would hold these views was better to be the aim of pity than anger and that we should therefore not advise his employers of our disgust at his outlandish views.
As a person who does celebrate diversity I do respect his right to hold such distastfull opinions BUT I object to him using his unique position in broadcasting to spread such slightly disguised incitement to hatred.
I happen to disagree with the, well disgraced, Churches position
on matters gay, BUT I do not abuse my position in life by preaching that to all and sundry.

The problem here is not in this individuals personal views but his employers lack of journalistic and editorial standards by allowing
him to use the airways to spread a phopic and nasty view

Am I wrong ?


lack of standards

This isn't a joke. This guy is, in fact, for real.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.....

Come on girls, do you honestly think that Charlie Wolf's witterings warrant this level of attention? All he is doing is trying to provoke a reaction. His comments in yesterday's Echo notwithstanding, he is delighted that his previous article on Gay Pride received so much negative criticism.

It gave him material for a second article on gay issues and generated a little frisson of controversy Charlie Wolf 1 - Gay Community 0.

LeBaron, I agree that the Echo should make an attempt to impress on Charlie that his views may be considered offensive to some. However, I would hope that individual readers would make up their own minds on the issues he raises, and not just blindly jump into line behind him.

Now, please tell me somebody on this board has something more interesting to discuss than the opinions of a newspaper columnist.

How to handle tabloid broadcasting, ignore it and hope it will wither and die or protest and risk doing what the nonesense is aimed at and
fueling a non debate.

By the way where do I apply for the Queer Tax Rebate ?

This new article is way over the top and very badly written. It's crossed the line from grey area and any sensible reader should now be clearly able to see what a fool he is. I don't think we have much need to worry now.