‘Unionism & Sexuality: The Disturbed Conflict Therein’ by Donal Lavery

There is a theory that ardent right-wingers possess authoritarian personalities which repress emotional and sexual expression out of insecurity. It falls into line with B. F. Skinner’s observations on “operant conditioning” in human behaviour and psyche. Now no sensible person would doubt for one moment that everyone is entitled to a private life, but that is questionable when someone’s private life conflicts with their duties as a public representative.

Recently an Ulster Unionist Assemblyman was found to be sending explicit messages and photos of himself on a website for gay and bisexual men. This is someone who has consistently opposed all attempts to afford same-sex couples one of the most basic human rights – to marry those they love dear. It’s abhorrent that someone can be so inconsistent in their public and private persona and not be held to account for it.

Of course this isn’t the first such anomaly within Unionist and Loyalist circles. A founding member of the DUP, Clifford Smyth, has spoken to the media of his transvestism in the past. We tend to forget the whole debacle with Paul Berry not that long ago and the dubious massage incident. Likewise, allegations are now surfacing about the deceased Lord Molyneaux and his “friendships” with known gay men whilst a leading Ulster Unionist and Conservative Monday Club member. Additionally, a DUP staff member was sacked in recent years for placing a hidden camera in an office toilet. For people so concerned with “sexual propriety”, they have a very strange way of showing it.

There is something messed up within the Unionist mind, that they seek to deny people social justice for having the courage to be in public what some Unionists are in private. We need, with a sense of urgent vigour, to press the Westminster government to introduce legislation which will be binding over any such measures the Unionists use to block the rights of the LGBT community – who deserve our full support for the uncivilised open-air prison they have endured for centuries. The fundamental rights of couples in Dublin or Edinburgh should be held in accord with those in Belfast or Derry. It’s not a complicated matter and rights are not negotiable. Equality and transparency remain the Trojan horse for exposing these shallow ‘intrigues’ for what they really are, behind the political and evangelical facade. For as one famous star once espoused, sex is here to stay. And as a real Christian I conclude with Christ’s own parting words, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!”


15 Responses to ‘Unionism & Sexuality: The Disturbed Conflict Therein’ by Donal Lavery

  1. jessica January 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm #


  2. pjdorrian January 29, 2017 at 12:28 pm #

    That list could have many more added to it. There are rumours of politicians having taken legal steps to forbid and chat about their little peccadilloes.

    • Mark January 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm #

      That couldn’t be an MP who was found to be watching curious films at a hotel he stayed at.

  3. moser January 29, 2017 at 2:07 pm #

    Perhaps, if we tied up all the sexually repressed unionists and spanked them then, they just might succumb to our demands. Tyranny and bondage !

  4. Mark January 29, 2017 at 2:33 pm #

    Liam Oiraste was one also, unionist and as straight as a three pound note, for proof, we should exhume his corpse from it’s crypt and discover was he really interred with his male ‘friend’. If we did this, would all the queer’s in Unionism then ‘come out’ and feel comfortable being themselves, even the curious one?
    I did previously make the point, the BBC, usually ardent supporters of Unionism, broke the RHI scandal, it hasn’t gone away you know, but why?

    • giordanobruno January 29, 2017 at 5:12 pm #

      Let me guess.
      Could it be because the BBC is a seething den of LGBT activists?

  5. MT January 29, 2017 at 2:50 pm #

    “someone who has consistently opposed all attempts to afford same-sex couples one of the most basic human rights – to marry those they love dear.”

    Same sex marriage isn’t a human right at all, never mind a basic one.

    • Mark Mitchell February 3, 2017 at 6:40 pm #

      Sorry but modern societies must have same sex marriage. This isn’t the 14-17th century or the 1950s so my advice is move on mate. Unionists are embarassing themselves even further.

      • MT February 3, 2017 at 7:37 pm #

        “Sorry but modern societies must have same sex marriage.”

        That’s great but it doesn’t make it a human right.

        “This isn’t the 14-17th century or the 1950s so my advice is move on mate.”

        Move on to where and why?

        “Unionists are embarassing themselves even further.”

        They may well be but that is entirely irrelevant.

  6. Sherdy January 29, 2017 at 4:12 pm #

    “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!”
    But the unfortunate part is they actually do know what they do.

  7. giordanobruno January 29, 2017 at 5:10 pm #

    I am not entirely sure that it is right to expose the private lives of politicians who may be gay, even in cases where it shows up their hypocrisy.
    For one thing there are families involved perhaps children who have to see this kind of stuff about their Dad maybe on the media.
    As a real christian do you not think that some compassion for human weakness is due?

    • Sherdy January 29, 2017 at 10:20 pm #

      Gio – Donal is not really exposing those ‘private’ lives as all of those names are already in the public domain, so no doubt their families are already aware of the facts!
      As to his Christianity, real or otherwise, I have no idea – would he be less culpable in your eyes if he is not a Christian?

      • giordanobruno January 29, 2017 at 10:42 pm #

        I am not accusing him of exposing anyone,I am asking if he thinks it right from a christian point of view that it happens.
        Christ did not like hypocrites it is true, but hypocrisy while possibly being a sin is not a crime and maybe he would have suggested compassion.

  8. PF January 29, 2017 at 5:56 pm #

    Whatever the problems some unionists may have with ‘sexuality’, the implication (and that it is in light of the deafening silence in regard to other groups) that this question is confined to unionists/unionism is pathetic beyond belief; one might even say sectarian.

    • Wolfe tone January 29, 2017 at 7:14 pm #

      I would agree PF. There are plenty from a nationalist persuasion who find it hard to accept a bearded ‘woman’ as sort of ‘normal’.