 sj |
||
|
||
BS: All changed, changed utterly.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: akenaton Date: 23 May 15 - 05:41 PM Fergie, the John Jay Institutes report on Catholic clerical abuse is the most detailed so far. It states that in the general population the overwhelming number of victims are female.....In clerical sexual abuse, four out of five victims are male. 2 out of 5 of these young male victims are over 15 years of age. 2 out of 5 are between 11 and 15. That means that half of the victims are over 15 and under 18. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 06:09 PM That's fine, but let's all assert that there is nothing immoral about gay sex and there never has been. There is no scope for this to be a matter of opinion. As for the Church, this result is a well-deserved and overdue kick up the backside. No religion has the right to claim dominion over a whole nation. That is what the Catholic Church has tried to do in Ireland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 06:10 PM That was to Joe Offer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 06:18 PM Jim Carroll says:
If only! Far from being a uniting influence, the church has proven again and again that the way it has used religion is one of the most devisive and dangerous influence - Northern Ireland, Israel, Syria..... anywhere were religion and politics are indivisible. As I said above, I hope that the future majority will not impose a new oppression upon those who question their decision. What Mr. Carroll says is frightening to me. He paints Christianity with a very broad brush. It's certainly true that some have used religion as a tool of oppression, and to reinforce their fear and prejudice and hatred. But that's only part of the story. There are many others who have used religion as a tool for justice, to promote and support the rights and needs of people who are oppressed. The fact that gay marriage won this referendum by a vast majority, should not herald a new oppression of those who profess religious beliefs. We've had enough oppression from all sides. It's time for tolerance and respect for all. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 06:31 PM Steve Shaw says: but let's all assert that there is nothing immoral about gay sex and there never has been That's your opinion, Steve, and it's also my opinion. But I think that dealing in absolutes, is what gets our society in a lot of trouble. I believe that people should have the right to question the morality of gay sex, and to publicly discuss that question. As for ake's thinking about priests molesting teenage males (and females, for that matter), I think he has a point. Many young priests have hopelessly immature ideas about sex, and I think their actions may be due to sexual immaturity that is different from what motivates those who molest prepubescent children. I think there is a need to discuss child molestation honestly and with open minds. I do not think this thread is an appropriate place for discussion of child molestation. Let's stick to the topic of gay marriage here. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 07:33 PM If it's true that there is nothing immoral about heterosexual sex, as long as it is consensual and non-exploitative, then there is equally nothing immoral about gay sex on that same basis. This really can't be a matter of anyone's opinion. That is not a absolutist position. It isn't ordinary, decent, non-religious people who have made sex a "moral issue". It's religion. The people (usually men in frocks, fer chrissake) who have turned ordinary sex into a moral issue are guilty of the worst kind of authoritarian, control-freakery extremism. Actually, they are perverts. The fact that you see this stuff as a matter of opinion betrays the fact that you've been suckered into that way of thinking by your religion. The way of thinking that makes normal, happy, guilt-free sex all the more difficult for ordinary people to enjoy and celebrate. Organised religion is out to control our lives. It serves no other purpose. Today, organised religion has had its grip loosened just a little bit in Ireland. Let's fight for more of that, instead of pretending that aspects of people's honest and upright private lives can ever be a matter of anyone's opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 07:43 PM Steve, what makes sex with an 18-yr-old legal, and sex with a 17-yr-old a crime? And why is the "age of consent" different in different places? It's a matter of opinion. Sex is something that confuses and confounds us all - which may be part of what makes it so wonderful. When it comes to sex, there are very few answers that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The topic should be open to free discussion, with all sides respecting the rights of others to have differing opinions. And in the end, it's usually the people concerned who should be free to make up their own minds about their own conduct - as long as both parties consent. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 07:44 PM And I can't believe that you can be so naive about akenaton's post. It's as though you've completely forgotten his form on this issue down the years. He is pouncing on even half-opportunities to promote his viciously anti-gay agenda. If you think he has a point, then you seriously need to think again and try a bit harder to read between his lines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 07:57 PM Steve, what makes sex with an 18-yr-old legal, and sex with a 17-yr-old a crime? And why is the "age of consent" different in different places? It's a matter of opinion. Sex is something that confuses and confounds us all - which may be part of what makes it so wonderful. When it comes to sex, there are very few answers that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The topic should be open to free discussion, with all sides respecting the rights of others to have differing opinions. And in the end, it's usually the people concerned who should be free to make up their own minds about their own conduct - as long as both parties consent. Sorry, but this is a mischievous attempt to deflect from the issue. I said in my post that sex should be consensual and non-exploitative. Didn't you catch that bit? If you want to discuss where lines should be drawn apropos of young people and sex, great. Start a thread on it. Your Church has a damn sight more to say, far too much, on sex than that, and its perverted "teachings" on contraception, abortion, gay love, the purposes of sex and the rest get in the way of people enjoying a happy and knowledgeable sex life, big time. What ordinary people need when it comes to sex is good information, not your opinions. The information that the Catholic Church does its damnedest to deny people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 08:13 PM Let's not go to the topic of child molestation in this thread, Steve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 08:25 PM Well, Steve, I'll agree that too many people in my Catholic Church have too much to say about abortion. For the most part, whether I agree with the "official opinion" or not, the Catholic Church doesn't spend much time talking about sexual matters. It's far more concerned about poverty and the treatment of immigrants. I rarely hear any discussion within the Catholic Church about any sexual issue other than abortion. And I wish they'd shut up about abortion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 May 15 - 08:55 PM Well, I'd say the discussion needs to get going on changing the Church's antediluvian attitudes on gay sex, on the purpose of sex, on sex education, on sexual equality and on contraception. It wasn't so long ago that the Church was lionising Mother Teresa. I don't exactly keep up with Church affairs like you do but I doubt somehow that they've dropped her. Cementing a position then staying silent on it isn't doing good works in my book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Joe Offer Date: 23 May 15 - 09:58 PM No, despite the very effective onslaught of propaganda from St. Hitchens, the Catholic Church is highly unlikely to abandon Mother Teresa. And I think the official Catholic attitudes on gay sex, the purpose of sex, on sex education, sexual equality, and contraception are far less antediluvian than the propaganda you've heard would lead you to think. Believe it or not, there are a lot of intelligent, sensible, compassionate people in the Catholic Church. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Rapparee Date: 23 May 15 - 10:22 PM And right now the RC Church has a lot more to deal with that contraception, etc. Big Frankie is coming out with an encyclical on the environment and its effect on people. He'll be addressing the US Congress on September 24 and I suspect he's going to make damned near all of the Catholic conservatives (such as John Boehner, the Speaker of the House) uncomfortable to say the least. If you have sex of any sort with a child (however that's defined in the law) you commit a crime. Period. But as Joe says, this isn't the place to discuss child molestation, pedophilia, and similar topics. Instead, let's rejoice in what Ireland just did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Donuel Date: 24 May 15 - 01:11 AM Actually the RC Church is dancing for joy. First make a cross on your abdomen, when in rome do like a roman, everybody say their own KRIEA LAISON, doin the genderflect dance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 May 15 - 01:27 AM Tom Lehrer's Vatican Rag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Thompson Date: 24 May 15 - 02:07 AM Ireland has actually been in the 21st century for some 15 years ;) This is a fantastic and wonderful change. The campaign against equal marriage rights was very dirty, making untrue claims and pulling on the heartstrings; typical poster slogans were "Two men can't replace a mother's love" and "For freedom of conscience, vote No" (with, universally, a heart in the 'O' of 'vote'). It is going to change Ireland; no, it hasn't instantly achieved full employment, paid off the national debt or made people equal, but it is such a change in attitude and fairness that it will absolutely change our Ireland, change the things we're proud of in Ireland, and the things we want, and the things we know we can achieve, and the things we do achieve. === Now to answer some of the points of those seeking to quarrel above. My opinions are only mine here, and I will not be joining in any further discussion in this thread: 1) The priests who abused children did not attack "male youths" - this is a line pushed by the most conservative and enabling people in the Church. They raped little children, boys and girls; they terrified them by threats; they were helped in this by bishops who moved them from parish to parish when discovered; they brought children in and made them swear not to tell what had happened to them; a Vatican instruction told priests and bishops that all reports of these rapes must be kept within the Church and not reported to police. 2) I absolutely agree with the moderators here taking strong action to stop the childish tantrums and verbal abuse that has become almost the norm between certain posters. I don't agree with their methods. I would think it would be more apposite a) to remove abusive posts immediately when they appear, b) to ban (temporarily, then permanently if necessary) posters who post rudely, c) to stop 'guests' being able to post without being signed in. And as a temporary measure, d) to remove threads altogether when this happens. 'Thread creep' is always a problem with online forums; it has become particularly annoying here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 15 - 02:31 AM I cannot see how it can be wrong to vilify bigotry, oppression and militarism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 15 - 02:31 AM PS - what's wrong with thread creep? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jack Campin Date: 24 May 15 - 02:56 AM Who's next? There are other countries where the Church has a similar grip on the State to the way it was in Ireland - Greece is the obvious example, and in many ways worse because of the Orthodox Church's vast property holdings. The crisis maybe provides an opportunity to dislodge their grip. Romania and Georgia are going backwards, with the Church getting steadily more entrenched in a controlling role. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: GUEST Date: 24 May 15 - 03:33 AM Joe said there are a lot of compassionate people in the Catholic Church. What some people seem to have missed is that this vote proves it. It is highly significant that it was the votes of the general population in favour of change we are talking about here, many of whom are practicing Catholics. It is high time a certain proportion of both the clergy and the church bashers got over the naive view that everyone who is Catholic is the same. This was the whole population voting. So no one can ever claim such changes are about pressure groups in Westminster or other governing bodies overriding the public opinion again. And that's why I think the caption of the thread - all changes, changes utterly - is appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: DMcG Date: 24 May 15 - 03:37 AM Sorry, me above. (Dave McGlade, a practicing Catholic who would have voted yes if I lived there) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 15 - 04:02 AM I cannot see how it can be wrong to vilify bigotry, oppression and militarism. Nor can I, but on a forum that does not allow belligerent, abusive and personal attacks you can't, so why not just demolish their arguments. Names will never hurt them. Crushing their arguments and exposing their baseless views will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 15 - 04:05 AM "The fact that gay marriage won this referendum by a vast majority, should not herald a new oppression of those who profess religious beliefs." Drink to that any time, but, as I have said over and over again in these arguments - my problem has never been with believers, who include family, friends and neighbours, but those who would exploit those beliefs for power and influence - ie, the Churches I get tired of being misrepresented as being against people believing in god - any god - what the believe is entirely their own business, as is what I believe. There was an incredible smugness in the statement "welcome to the 21st century" especially as it is the efforts of the church in Ireland that has kept the country rooted in the past The Catholic Church as a body remains opposed to contraception and family planning, divorce, pregnancy termination, homosexuality and the role of women in society - in most cases, it is greatly at odds with its own believers. It took the mass rape of children by clerics to break the grip of the church in Ireland, yet the church is still fighting tooth-and-nail to retain its right to educate children here - utterly grotesque! If Ireland has remained in the past, it is the influence of the Christian church that has kept it there. If that is to change, the the church's role has to be confined to spiritual guidance only (and that, only under careful supervision). The significance of the Gay Marriage vote is that it was 'the people's choice' - as Government minister Leo Varadkar described it, 'a social revolution". It was a decision taken in the face of fierce opposition from the church. Ireland is the only country in the world to have accepted Gay Marriage by referendum - something to be proud of. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Musket Date: 24 May 15 - 04:11 AM So your personal attacks on me? You say I don't exist. You then say that gay men are more prone to carry disease and support Akenaton in saying we are all promiscuous so no point in us being married anyway. Personal attacks? You wrote the book mate! I am too busy celebrating to get annoyed that Akenaton has tried to link gayness with clerical abuse and his putting the word marriage as "marriage" just shows us that some people can't handle reality and love judging others. He is irrelevant and so is the moderators who thinks such shocking attacks on Mudcat members and a good few million people in general is "fair comment." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 15 - 04:36 AM I for one do not attack all Catholics en masse, failing to recognise that there are millions of decent Catholics of good conscience. When I refer to the "Church" or the "Catholic Church" I am referring to that religion as an organised body with its authoritarian hierarchy. Whilst there are lots of intelligent, sensible and compassionate Catholics, they do all acquiesce in a particular delusion, and, what's more, we don't hear much noise from them. Incidentally, you will find that Hitchens' "propaganda" regarding Mother Teresa is entirely factual, inconveniently for her supporters. Pointing out that a person who is sycophantically idolised was actually very wicked is not "propaganda". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Musket Date: 24 May 15 - 04:55 AM Oh. I actually came on to say something else before noticing Keith's nasty post above. Those who are dragging the conversation around to sex.. Tell me. When you attend a wedding of a man and a woman, do you sit in the pew thinking of the happy couple having sex later? Just wondering. This isn't about special cases, it isn't about anything political, it is about gay couples enjoying the wonders of marriage. We were married a long time ago and I commend our happiness to other couples. If Akenaton isn't happy with marriage, he shouldn't take it out on happy couples but consider his own experience. But quietly eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 15 - 04:57 AM I do not resort to personal attack Musket. I argue a case and support it with hard evidence. You denigrate the use of cut and paste and rely on assertions backed with abuse. I am sorry but you have failed to convince me that more than one person writes your posts, but without proof I would never state that it is a lie. I have never said anything about gay men except report the official annual stats, and I do not agree with Ake on gay marriage. I am in favour and have only ever supported gay marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 15 - 05:01 AM I support gay marriage but I respect the views of those who still believe in the traditional concept of marriage. After all those millennia, change will take time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: GUEST Date: 24 May 15 - 05:09 AM It wasn't to be long before Joe Offer calls bigotry acceptable if priests are saying it, for Akenaton to equate gayness with paedophilia and for Keith A of Hertford to trot out the assertion that "statistics" equate being gay with having HIV. Joe. Opposing equality on the grounds of your hobby is bigotry. Please remind those in your church who question how reasonable people like you can be catholics. Save your comments for them eh? Keith. The statistics on sexual health confirm that more Heterosexual people live with HIV than gay men. They also, through A&E and colorectal referrals confirm that more women receive anal sex than men. I presume your comments on sex confirm what you think about when attending a wedding. Akenaton. What does it feel like to be shunned by respectable society? It isn't too late to cast your prejudice aside and join the real world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 May 15 - 05:15 AM Not only a reality check, but a philosophy check is required, particularly by the clergy, but also by many others who roar loudly in the media. Perhaps we may interpret the Irish vote to that effect. Religion is one thing, morality is another thing, law is yet another thing. Sex is one thing, marriage is quite a bunch of other things. Do not call it "homosexual marriage" when even impotent men are eligible. In many countries, married couples without children have tax privileges, whose legitimation is now to be reassessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 15 - 05:24 AM I support gay marriage but I respect the views of those who still believe in the traditional concept of marriage. So what it this business of the traditional concept? How far back are you going? What other cultures, present and historical, are you including? Chanting "traditional concept" is doing no more then slamming the door on gay people's right to happiness. There is nothing especially "sacred" about a legal union made at either an altar or in a register office between a man and a woman such that we can't apply flexibility to. My son and his now-missus have just been married in a secular ceremony in Las Vegas by Elvis. Is that traditional enough for you? If we can have flexibility in the way it's done, why not in the genders of the couple? If you keep your anti-gay wedding views to yourself, fine, but, as soon as you speak out against, you are working against people's happiness in a thoroughly unjustified, bigoted way and your "views" are not to be respected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: DMcG Date: 24 May 15 - 05:30 AM and they all share the same delusion? they all have the same understanding of what the word "God" means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 24 May 15 - 05:34 AM In the run up to the Referendum, Fintan O'Toole addressed the 'traditional concept of marriage' argument in the Irish Times and showed how much, even in a few decades, the nature of marriage has changed. Even before the constitutional change was put to the voter: Marriage was nothing to be proud of in 1983 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: DMcG Date: 24 May 15 - 05:34 AM Sorry, I'd delete that post if I could and will not respond to any posts based on it. We do not want to divert this thread from the celebration it should be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: akenaton Date: 24 May 15 - 05:52 AM GUEST...I have never equated homosexuality with paedophilia. I do think that any male, catholic priest or other, who is sexually attracted to teenage boys is obviously homosexual. To my way of thinking, paedophilia is a serious and dangerous illness as well as a crime under the law and should be treated as such. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 15 - 05:56 AM Human beings are entitled to their delusions. We are not all Mr Spocks. I support Liverpool fer chrissake and Musket's delusion is so terrible as to make it impossible for me to mention his club by name. Harbouring a delusion does not mean that the other 99% of your brain can't fully embrace intelligence, sensitivity and compassion. It's what you do with your delusion that counts. I use mine to denigrate any fan of Man U at every opportunity. Fully justified, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 15 - 06:03 AM Cheers for the article, Peter. A great corrective to all those brainless "traditional concept of marriage" rants from the anti-gay marriage bigots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: akenaton Date: 24 May 15 - 06:18 AM "Akenaton. What does it feel like to be shunned by respectable society? It isn't too late to cast your prejudice aside and join the real world." I see homosexual "marriage" as a retrograde step as far as society is concerned.....nothing to do with religious belief. I would estimate that at least 50% of my countrymen and women would oppose Homosexual "marriage" in a referendum....as opposed to a poll, so I am unlikely to be "shunned" in my own community :0). It is also worth noting, that homosexual "marriage" is legal in only a very small number of countries.....it is also not accepted in parts of the UK.....So in real numbers you are the people likely to be shunned by society worldwide. Everyone has prejudices....... my objections to Homosexual marriage are based on real figures and behaviour which is bad for society(open "marriages", relationships etc), not wishful thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: akenaton Date: 24 May 15 - 06:21 AM Sorry, that should read "marriage". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 May 15 - 06:24 AM You're beaten. Yesterday's man. Give up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 May 15 - 06:30 AM The article linked by Peter Laban raises an important point: "traditions" must be seen in the complete context of a society. Most people appreciate the security promised by a society with strict rules. When security collapses, e.g. by unemployment, the rules will inevitably be questioned. Some people, and I think that includes akenaton, hope that keeping up the rules will bring back security - but it will not. New times need new rules, as strict as required, and discussed in a transparent manner. Morality is a complex matter, do not think you know all about it (least of all because you studied theology). Law and other institutions of society are other complex topics, all somewhat related but not identical. (PS about my previous message, where I warned of confusing marriage with sex: I was using the words "sex" and "homosexual" in their newer sense of sexual activity. The word "same-sex" is correct in the older sense, "same-gender" conforms to modern usage but is rarely used.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 15 - 06:31 AM "I would estimate that at least 50% of my countrymen and women would oppose Homosexual "marriage" in a referendum" You're probably right - welcome back to the twentieth century. For all the smugness, the U.K. remains the place with major racist and homophobic issues in these Islands Ireland has just said "Yes" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Musket Date: 24 May 15 - 06:38 AM My objections to your marriage would be more justifiable Akenaton. After all, you either can or have passed your genes on. Clapton help them.. Married by Elvis? Wow, lucky buggers.. We had a po faced Dutch registrar who could but wouldn't say anything to me in English till Kris's Dad asked her to do so. The Owls supporting deluded Musket reminds us that you can also get married in the McDonalds outside Scunthorpe Utd's ground. We had a hotel, that Musket had a hotel, but I was at a wedding at a football stadium itself last year for one of our medical students. Those who speak of what they call "traditional" marriage.. As churches in The UK are closing at a rate that is spectacularly encouraging, does that mean they will refuse to get married once their churches are bingo halls and flats? Of course, The Rt Rev Ronald McDonald will welcome them to his moulded plastic pews... Hey Keith? How long after Wilberforce was it acceptable to think of blacks as slaves? How long after the suffragettes was it socially ok to see women as second class citizens? (Other than churches of course...) How long is it legitimate to tell me I shouldn't be married eh? Haven't you a church to go to today, to pray for tolerance, understanding and brotherly love? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Musket Date: 24 May 15 - 06:45 AM By the way Akenaton.. What has open marriage got to do with gay marriage? What is the connection? Why is the word "relationships" a reason to oppose a marriage? Look, I know that around here in Inverary they laugh about the wife swapping ring that was notorious in Strachur, but don't judge gay marriages by the same token eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jack Campin Date: 24 May 15 - 06:59 AM I would estimate that at least 50% of my countrymen and women would oppose Homosexual "marriage" in a referendum You're probably right - welcome back to the twentieth century. For all the smugness, the U.K. remains the place with major racist and homophobic issues in these Islands The result in Britain would be almost exactly the same. On these figures, a few percent more support for the YES side. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11626678/Surge-in-support-for-gay-marriage.html On the other hand there may, for all I know, be more anti-British bigotry in Ireland than there is anti-Irish bigotry in Britain. At least, you're doing your bit to make that the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Musket Date: 24 May 15 - 07:28 AM Jim is wrong. The UK, other than the bit attached to his adopted home that still considered being gay a crime till recently, voted in all three countries via parliament and assembly to enact gay marriage. Whilst really happy that Ireland voted as it did, the fact that it was a referendum rather than merely enacting equality as per equality legislation isn't something to be proud of actually. The Irish government, by using referendum, gave legitimacy to homophobia by making it a matter of conscience. I'd heed the bit about glass houses and stones if I were you Jim. The figures by opinion polls in The UK consistently showed in the run up to the parliamentary debate, that the majority of people didn't think as Akenaton wishes they did. For England, Scotland and Wales, equality was the natural course, and it took a right wing Tory Prime Minister to enact what Akenaton calls a liberal political plot.,😆😆😆 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 15 - 07:40 AM "there may, for all I know, be more anti-British bigotry in Ireland than there is anti-Irish bigotry in Britain" THere in't - a large number of Irish people we have met here have worked in Britain, are grateful for having the opportunity to have been able to have done so and have in general, got on well with British people Any major anti-British sentiment is directed against politicians and certain parts of the establishment Having been born in Britain, and having lived most of my life there, the opposite was not the case with many British people I know/knew Anti-Irish sentiment is both historical and current (though in latter times much of this is directly related to 'the troubles'). As far as general racism is concerned, Britain is streets ahead on that particular subject, at least, in the three major cities I lived in, the only exception being towards Travellers, where they are running almost neck-and-neck, with Ireland just in front. There are signs of growing racism in Ireland, mainly due to politicians making excuses for their own shortcomings by blaming immigrants, but that has yet to filter down to any significant degree, to ordinary people, who remain welcoming and friendly to all. I have always been open in my opinion that Britain is a very racist place, little has happened recently to change that opinion. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 May 15 - 07:48 AM "Jim is wrong. " Not really Muskie - Ireland (the Irish people) voted in a referendum to bring about changes on Gay marriage - that has yet to happen elsewhere. Incidentally, there were enough politicians and authoritative figures here who spoke out in favour of the amendment (including former Presidents of Ireland) to make it more than a government ploy (not that I wouldn't put it past them). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 May 15 - 07:50 AM I have been rebuked for speaking of the traditional concept of marriage. After thousands of years, it has only been open to gay folk for how many, and even now in how many places? It is extraordinary how quickly people's views have changed. Ten years ago, that referendum would have been a landslide against, but you can not expect everyone to accept such a change on the same day. Guest, Keith. The statistics on sexual health confirm that more Heterosexual people live with HIV than gay men. I know. So what? They also, through A&E and colorectal referrals confirm that more women receive anal sex than men. Not a surprise. So what? |