BS: All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 02:27 PM

It had to be a referendum for constitutional reasons.

I would say that the real achievements were decriminalisation, making it illegal to discriminate, and allowing couples to have legally recognised unions with equal rights to marriage.

All that has just been achieved in Ireland is the right to use the word "marriage" provided the ceremony is not in a church.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 03:16 PM

"All that has just been achieved in Ireland is the right to use the word "marriage" provided the ceremony is not in a church"
Civil marriages have been a fact of life in Ireland for 8 years.
Despite your claim of supporting this amendment, you still appear to be chipping away at what has been achieved.
It is noticeable that none of the Christians here have acknowledged what a magnificent kick has been administered to the church's arse - things will never be the same again - not even if the Catholic Church takes the advised "reality check".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 03:23 PM

Pretty sketchy stuff to post. Nothing to base a serious claim against a religious group on:
A Wiki article with anecdotal "press reports" from "anonymous source" "have suggested", that   yada yada.

Annon. figures and sources and available figures- between 15 and 58 percent.

One case "suggested" that, yada yada.

A former RC convener claimed that "it has been estimated that" yada yada.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 03:46 PM

Civil marriages have been a fact of life in Ireland for 8 years.

As a result of the referendum you can now have exactly the same thing but call it marriage.

you still appear to be chipping away at what has been achieved.

What has been achieved is a small alteration to the definition of the word "marriage."

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:01 PM

You really haven't got a clue about this, have you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:04 PM

regarding the priesthood: As soon as I was old enough (early 20s?) to think about the issues of religion and was aware that the Catholic church mostly forbade priests to marry, it concerned me enough to wonder HOW they dealt with sexuality.
   After all, the body and its hormones are not aware that the mind has adopted a course that requires celibacy. It is not surprising that men (especially younger men) who take up the priesthood... are often conflicted. In an environment where they associate mostly with other men, temptation is likely to involve other men. Perhaps some join the priesthood with that in mind... knowing the possibilities. Polls and interviews are not likely to give an exact figure, but some polls DO show a variable but significant % who identify as homosexual AND/OR engage in it. Priests are still human, and some of them fail to conform to the rules of their particular segment of society, as well as the laws & rules of society in general. It is sad... and often appalling.... but not surprising.
I would hope that someday, serious revision of Catholic doctrine, perhaps under a pontiff like Pope Francis, might ease some of those issues & pressures. Nothing will ever make issues involving sexuality disappear from human relationships, but Ireland has shown us that progress is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:15 PM

I'd respond, if the prior posts weren't so laughable!

Such 'experts' on ignorance!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:33 PM

"All that has just been achieved in Ireland is the right to use the word "marriage" provided the ceremony is not in a church."

While not forced to do so, actually, while they are scarce, there are some that are open to perform same sex marriages. I agee with the poster, the freedom of choice is refreshing-though I suspect fewer gays (than some project) wilo sekect to be officially married, since so many alternativevoptions are open and increasingly accepted, in many progressive societies.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:39 PM

"Such 'experts' on ignorance!!"

Self praise is no praise, gfs.
;)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:45 PM

Ed, Nor am I going to engage in your playground cat calling....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:48 PM

As a result of the referendum you can now have exactly the same thing but call it marriage.


You can ofcourse keep on repeating this ad nauseum and hope it will become true.

However, Thompson earlier posted a link to 160 differences.

And at that point your re-iterations of the point lost any meaning. So please, give it a rest. Nobody is buying.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:55 PM

"Ed, Nor am I going to engage in your playground cat calling....
GfS"

Is that a genuine promise, gfs:?
)

BTW, I never called you a cat-but, since you raise it, there were those feline -type posts in the past?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:25 PM

If there are differences, that is a mistake in the original drafting.
Why has it has been ignored for eight years.
Why has it not been dealt with as a minor adjustment already.
It would take about half an hour to put through parliament.

Steve,
You really haven't got a clue about this, have you, Keith?
So what exactly have I got wrong?

Civil marriages have been a fact of life in Ireland for 8 years.
As a result of the referendum you can now have exactly the same thing but call it marriage.

What has been achieved is just a small alteration to the definition of the word "marriage."

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:30 PM

Could someone provide the first few of the 160 differences.
I can't make it work.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:37 PM

You haven't a clue as to what has been achieved. Your trolling is diabolical. Go and have a long lie down.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:54 PM

steve, my post to joe applies to you too, but you seem to have missed it. Jesus clearly did define marriage as between a man and a woman , though of course you could at a streeeeech conjecture that he was not excluding homosexuals from the marriage ordinance !. you would just have to dismiss the other scriptures that have any bearing on the subject.....which of course you would do anyway.   that includes the ot scripture you asked someone else about...Leviticus 18 v 22. as I suggested to joe, Jesus audience would likely have accepted that prohibition from their religious cultural worldview, and have no need for him to spell it out, unlike the apostles letters to non jews.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 May 15 - 06:12 PM

Keith A wrote: Could someone provide the first few of the 160 differences

Here you go, Keith:

Short list of a few

Family unit not recognised
The civil partnership legislation does not recognise same-sex family units. The law ensures that same-sex relationships are treated unequally to heterosexual married couples in more than 100 instances.

Home not referred to as a family home
A home jointly owned by a same-sex couple is not considered a family home under the civil partnership legislation. Instead our homes are downgraded to the status of a 'shared home'.

Adoption rights
Same-sex couples still cannot adopt a child, even the child or children of their civil partner. Of course the legal position whereby an individual, regardless of their sexuality, can apply to adopt is maintained. However, unlike heterosexuals, we are not entitled to adopt as a couple.

Recognition of marriages from outside the state
Heterosexual couples who get married abroad have their marriages recognised in Ireland and avail of all the rights that flow from marriage. Same-sex couples who get married (or register a civil partnership) abroad in one of the 26 countries listed in Statutory Instrument 649 (2010) will have their civil partnership or civil marriage recognised as a civil partnership only. So this means that even if a same-sex couple were to get married abroad in one of the countries listed, in Ireland their marriage will only be recognised as a civil partnership with far fewer rights.

Compellability at Criminal Trial
A heterosexual couple who are married, cannot be compelled to give evidence against each other in a criminal trial. One of the reasons for this is recognition that testifying against one's spouse, particularly when compelled to do so, risks creating serious issues in a family. However, the same understanding of family cohesion does not extend to civil partners who could be forced/compelled to testify against their partner in a trial.

Children
Lesbians and gay men have always been loving mums and dads to their children. However, the civil partnership legislation completely ignores children – as if the children of same-sex couples don't exist! There is no provision for guardianship of children who are co-parented by same-sex couples. Importantly, there is also no provision for custody or maintenance arrangements for our children. For further details on the discrimination faced by children with LGBT parents, please see our report Voices of Children, please log on to our website at: www.marriagequality.ie.

Next of Kin
A child's non-biological parent may not be treated as next of kin in a hospital or school situation. In essence there is no legal recognition of the relationship between the child or children and their non-biological parents; they are effectively strangers in law. What this means in reality is that if a child needs emergency medical treatment and the biological parent is away, the non-biological parent will be unable to sign consent forms for treatment needed.

Separation
Married couples can divorce or secure a judicial separation, as opposed to civil partners who can only dissolve their relationship. The difference in approach shows clearly that civil partnerships are not seen by legislators as being as important to society as civil marriages.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 May 15 - 06:31 PM

There is no real desire in this thread to discuss the diverse notions of sexuality through history and different cultures. Otherwise we would discover that many things "ain't necessarily so".

Just to avoid me being misunderstood as supporting Pete's position, I may mention that a few lines after the verse mentioned, Leviticus 19:27 tells us "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (New International Version, no "thou"s). After that the book (= 3.Mose) returns to the topic of homosexual activities and pronounces death penalties.

Leviticus is still learned by heart by children (under 12) in Orthodox Jewish schools.

Some theologians insist on a "symbolic" interpretation, but I (not being a theologian) fail to see such a potential in those particular chapters.

The only honest "interpretation" I can imagine is that sex and other human relations should be guided by responsibility. The details must be found out by ethicists, depending on the consciousness of the current society (- not on public opinion). Since the current notion of sexuality differs from those of earlier epochs, the consequences cannot possibly be the same.

Those who think that present-day ethics are the absolute truth at last, should be warned: all other epochs and cultures believed the same about theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:13 PM

"As a result of the referendum you can now have exactly the same thing but call it marriage."
You think so?
The referendum was on changing the Irish constitution (as has been pointed out, a necessary procedure.
The next step is to draft the result into law.
What do you think will happen now - that the government will go against the spirit of the decision and draft half-arsed legislation leaving the situation exactly the same, with changed wording?
Don't think so really - you ain't seen nuffin' yet.
I would have thought that the Irish government has its hands far too full with opposing the will of the majority of the people in respect to water charges and property taxes to take on the Irish population over same-sex marriage.
What I am hoping for is that the church refuses to perform same-sex marriages, leaving themselves wide open to legal action on discrimination on the basis of gender.
Despite your claims of support for gay marriage, you still (virtually single-handedly) attempt to denigrate and undermine the overwhelming result of the referendum - we call it 'begrudgery' over here.
This has been tremendous victory - for gays and for the will of the people - especially in respect to the Neanderthal-like stance of the church
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:31 PM

steve, my post to joe applies to you too, but you seem to have missed it. Jesus clearly did define marriage as between a man and a woman , though of course you could at a streeeeech conjecture that he was not excluding homosexuals from the marriage ordinance !. you would just have to dismiss the other scriptures that have any bearing on the subject.....which of course you would do anyway.   that includes the ot scripture you asked someone else about...Leviticus 18 v 22. as I suggested to joe, Jesus audience would likely have accepted that prohibition from their religious cultural worldview, and have no need for him to spell it out, unlike the apostles letters to non jews.

I asked you a very simple question, and, being a very simple man, I would have been satisfied with a simple answer. Instead, I get this pile of gobbledygook. Please show me where Jesus said that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Never mind Leviticus. I'll deal with that later. But you said Jesus said it. As for as I can glean, Jesus said nothing even remotely like it. If you know different,,and I've missed the reference, then let me have it. What I want is the chapter and verse. What I don't want, especially from you, is your "interpretation."

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:26 AM

While of course any individual is entitled to use any book or coda as instructions for his life, expecting others to live by it, and instructing them on their mode of life using your own particular coda of choice is odd.
I love the Bible, and Jesus sounds like a nice young lad, though he went a bit strange in the end. But to use the Bible as anything other than a piece of literature, and to use Jesus' sayings as anything other than an interesting sounding-board for one's own moral code - not for me.
Those who want to base their lives on the Bible, or on Jesus' recorded sayings, are welcome to do so. But for them to slap a Bible down between us and say "This is what's right. End of." - nope.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:17 AM

Steve Shaw says: I don't think anyone supports abortion. It's not whether you support it, it's whether you acknowledge the right of all women to make unfettered decisions about their own bodies. Unfettered being the operative word. I should like to see abortion reduced to almost nil, by education, free contraception (along with non-moralising advice about it) and a striving for equality. In the meantime, whether a woman wants to keep her foetus is entirely a matter for her.

Up to this point, I agree with Steve completely. It is almost exactly what I'd say on the matter.

But then Steve goes on and gets a bit extreme: The biggest champions of abortion are the big religions who preach that ignorance and sexual abstinence are desirable, and who counsel against contraception. They know exactly how to keep abortion rates high, don't they?

Yes, the Catholic Church and some other Christian churches have anti-abortion extremists who may approach this description, but they are the extremists. Most churches carry on a more reasoned and balanced discussion of the questions related to sexuality. And for the most part, the discussion is presented as an opinion, and not a mandate. There are some on both sides who misinterpret the church positions as mandates, but that's usually not the case. Church leaders are not as stupid or as lacking in compassion as some would make them out to be.

Oh, and I notice there's a nitwit or two up there who still are trying to convince people that I equate gay marriage with neo-Nazism. Their opinions, like the most extreme of those who promote and oppose abortion or gay marriage or any number of things, are best ignored. They can't be reasonable - they see everything in absolutes, with no room for discussion or questioning or reasoning. Too bad.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:25 AM

"I would have thought that the Irish government has its hands far too full with opposing the will of the majority of the people in respect to water charges and property taxes to take on the Irish population over same-sex marriage."
an interesting and perceptive comment, my opinion is that the irish government did the right thing for the wrong reason, it is an attempt to win votes.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:36 AM

Yep, Pete, I figured you'd bring up Leviticus. Have you read the whole book of Leviticus? It's an interesting collection of ancient moral codes, many of which contradict each other. "Bible-believing" people can have a picnic in Leviticus, because they can go there and pick and choose rules to support any position they want to take. Just as homosexuality is an "abomination," Leviticus also labels eating shellfish an "abomination." Do you like eating crab or shrimp or clams, Pete?

I actually do find much value in the moral questions Leviticus poses. But whether Leviticus says something is right or wrong is a matter of religion. Why should a government pass laws based on the precepts found in Leviticus? When government gets into the business of legislating morality it creates big problems, and big injustices. Religious denominations should be free to give moral guidance to their members - but religions should not bully governments into enacting legislation that forces others to adhere to religious standards.

And whether I believe homosexuality is right or wrong, what right do I have to dictate whether their conduct is legal or illegal? It seems absolutely ludicrous for anyone to think they have a right to vote to decide whether homosexuals should have the right to marry. Whether or not they get married, is their business - and their business alone. It certainly has no effect on me, so why should I have a right to decide for them?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:47 AM

"They can't be reasonable"
Yes we can Joe
You said what you said and, rather than withdraw it when you had the opportunity, you left it said - 'nuff to convince us nitwits that you meant what you said.
You were later joined by a defender who threw in paedophelia and incest into the discussion.
Your church (at the very top) has condemned the result of the referendum as a defeat, not of the church, but for humanity as a whole - a serious statement which needs challenging - maybe you would like to have a go!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 03:58 AM

Allow me to point out that what I compared was my disdain for neo-Nazism with the disdain somebody else might have for gay marriage.

I did not equate gay marriage with Nazism in any manner.

And please note that Mr. Carroll and I both support the right of gay people to marry, but that still isn't enough for him. Apparently, his goal is only to defeat and destroy, not to discuss. Hell, he even wants to defeat and destroy those who agree with the legalization of gay marriage that he says he wants to achieve.

Go figure.

And yes, one Italian cardinal in my church said that the referendum was a defeat for humanity. He doesn't speak for me. An Irish archbishop who is much closer to the matter says the referendum signals that it's time for the Catholic Church to have a "reality check." Now, that archbishop is the one who speaks what I think. But in general, I think for myself, thankyouverymuch.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:07 AM

I am surprised and disappointed that Ireland's Civil Partnership was so half arsed.
Why did you put up with it?
The whole point of Civil Partnership was to provide the same rights as marriage.

So you now have what you should had eight years ago, and you can now call it "marriage," except in any church.

That is all that is achieved by all the expense, disruption and hoopla of the great referendum.
" All changed, changed utterly."
Hardly.

I am wholly in favour of equality in everything including marriage, but let's keep a sense of proportion about this.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:32 AM

Keith, the idea of "Civil Partnership" sounds good in theory, but time has shown that it hasn't worked very well. In every country, there is a whole body of case law that has developed to handle the problems of marriage.

"Civil Partnership" requires everything to start over again from Square One, or else there must be legislation to cover every minor point that has already been developed through case law. Far better to legally define civil partnership as "marriage" (no matter what the Bible says). It's my understanding that if we simply define homosexual partnerships as marriage, we don't have to work through the whole process all over again and develop a separate system of decisions for gay partnerships.

Legislation applies only to a certain point, and then questions unanswered by legislation must be tried and decided in court. Why not just simplify things and declare gay marriage to be the same as heterosexual marriage? I suppose that governments could pass legislation declaring civil partnership to be the same as marriage, but why not give the couples what they want and call it marriage?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:35 AM

One thing that has not changed is Keith's absolute belief that he alone is right.
Nobody,not even Keith gets it right every single time.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:36 AM

"Why did you put up with it?"
Christian fundamentalism Keith - it's called the power of the church.
You once argued (over the death of a young woman who was refused an abortion on religious grounds) that the Church had no say in Irish politics --very much not the case.
Up to fairly recently the Church had a strong say in Irish politics; it took revelations of decades, possibly centuries of widespread rape of children and the covering up of the crime by the Church (from top to bottom) to undermine their power
The removal of the clause in the Irish Constitution was a major step in breaking that grip, though they persist on trying to cling on by the fingernails - pregnancy termination, getting the government to pat compensation for decades of child abuse and the Magdalene Laundries, now gay marriage.
Centuries of despotic power doesn't disappear overnight - it's a long process.
Ten years ago, this referendum would have been unthinkable - now it' been won something to be proud of, not to knock - "the expense, disruption and hoopla of the great referendum.".
If you are so in favour of gay marriage, why have you opposed it on every issue, first, the bakery, on which you claimed that the judge didn't know her job, now on the referendum which you appear to be describing as a waste of time and money and an inconvenience - denigrating the result as having achieved nothing.
A strange way of supporting gay marriage, to my mind
"Allow me to point out that what I compared was my disdain for neo-Nazism"
Had you said this when you posted, or even clarified it later when it was challenged, I certainly wouldn't have made an issue of what you said.
You didn't, and as I pointed out, it remained said.
Can't go back and check now, of course as it's been removed as a thread and expunged from the archive.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:38 AM

Certainly not "all changed", but the referendum had an immense impact in many countries. Politicians and journalists used to think that pious countryfolk will inevitably oppose any change in the foundations of society - they have been proven wrong, by rock-hard numbers.

It is now time for a "philosophy check" in all public institutions. Superstition and unreasonable taboos are not restricted to religion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:59 AM

Jim, I protested the closure of the "cake" thread, and it has been restored. What I said was this (click): "I think I'd side with the cake shop on this one. Would the same principle require me to make a cake praising neo-Nazis if a customer ordered it?"

In other words, if the court decision in one situation requires the baker to decorate the cake with a slogan the customer wanted but the baker could not support, why wouldn't the same decision apply to a customer who wanted a neo-Nazi slogan?

That, Mr. Carroll, is certainly not equating neo-Nazism with gay marriage. You owe me an apology. And if you have any honor at all, you will stop accusing me of equating gay marriage with neo-Nazism.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:01 AM

These are your statements Joe - no withdrawal or qualification, just reiteration.
"Would the same principle require me to make a cake praising neo-Nazis if a customer ordered it?"
"I try to think about how I would react if I were forced to do something I considered offensive - like doing something in support of neo-Nazism. I would suppose the baker reacted similarly to being forced to support gay marriage."
"be assured that my contrasting of the two issues was intentional. But I do support gay rights, and I do not support neo-Nazism - that's the point."
You took an example of a regime that carried out the deliberate mass murder of many millions of people and put that next to what is, in fact the natural condition of being of a significant minority of human beings   
By comparing the two, you are putting them both in the same bracket as far as I'm concerned and it is this that I and others found unacceptable.
It is totally immaterial that you support one and abhor the other - such comparisons are offensive, particularly in the light of the stance taken by the church on homosexuality.
Sorry Joe - no apology necessary, as far as I'm concerned
I grew up surrounded by the idea that homosexuality was not only "unnatural", but that it was "intrinsically evil and a mortal sin", therefore punishable by eternal damnation - a natural condition condemned in the strongest terms by your church.
That remains the case, to my knowledge.
A leading figure in the Vatican has described the result of the vote as "a defeat for humanity".
Tahat this statement has the support of the upper echelons of The Vatican has been confirmed in this mornings papers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:03 AM

One thing that has not changed is Keith's absolute belief that he alone is right.
Nobody,not even Keith gets it right every single time.

Why do you say that about me?
Am I the only one who ever makes a point and defends it?

If you are so in favour of gay marriage, why have you opposed it on every issue,

I have never opposed it.
I disagreed with the judgement passed on the baker, not the slogan he refused to write.

I do not think the referendum was "a waste of time and money and an inconvenience - denigrating the result as having achieved nothing."

It achieved ss marriage.
I just suggested a sense of proportion be kept over it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:44 AM

Keith,maybe it's the way you do it.
Repeating your argument ad nau-se-am in much the same way,as you often do and demanding to be be told what is wrong with your statement comes across as a failure to grasp other peoples opinions.
In many threads other posters have tried to explain why they disagree with you,only to be met yet again with a repeat of exactly what you said before, this leads people to believe, as others have said "you simply don't get it"
You often also seem to subtly change what you said previously, thus giving the impression that you deny you said what can clearly be seen in a previous post.
You problem seems as I said is your way of argument it simply irritates
people and doesn't achieve anything other than annoy them.
Hope it helps you see why you get the response you often do.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 07:40 AM

Guest, Keith is subjected to a sustained attack on many threads, by a gang of ideologically driven people.

They distort what he has said and blatantly lie in their responses.
Keith is an extremely reasonable man, he uses reason in everything he writes here......it is annoying to many here when reason is rebuffed by ideological clap trap.

Keith and I disagree on many issues, but we both like to base our discussions and views on reason, avoiding the pitfall of political ideology.

I am a socialist, but can see that in social terms there are many facets of conservatism which are beneficial and even necessary to produce a balanced and sustainable society.

Blind adherence to political ideology of left or right produces fascism of left or right.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:09 AM

"I do not think the referendum was "a waste of time"
"That is all that is achieved by all the expense, disruption and hoopla of the great referendum."
!If you are so in favour of gay marriage, why have you opposed it on every issue,"
I specified your (now continuing on the other thread) opposition to a verdict from a judge you claim doesn't know her job
You continue to denigrate the result of the referendum by describing its achievements as "That is all that is achieved by all the expense, disruption and hoopla of the great referendum."
You reduce what as been won as only having achieved (non-church) same-sex marriage, when even the Catholic hierarchy are running round like headless chickens at the damage it has done to their grip on the minds of the population and their political influence - a world-shattering achievement in itself.
If you support same-sex marriage, your support is the same support the rope gives the hanged man.
Compared to the response that has been forthcoming from this result from within and outside Ireland, your support is questionable, to say the least.
How do you feel about the fact that the church no longer holds sway over people'd lives - or perhaps you still think it never did?
I suggest you memorise what Derrick has written for future reference - too late for it to be any use to you on this one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 08:34 AM

See what I mean?....Keith has never opposed "gay marriage".

But he does like to point out the inconsistences and contradictions in some of the political ideology written here.

Reason is answered by abuse and or lies.

"liberal" fascism lives and breathes.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 09:48 AM

It is all really an attack on the "last bastion of conservatism"...the church.

They are prepared to destroy society to have their way.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 May 15 - 10:00 AM

Ake, that presumes the conservative christian church is the center of society? Not in this day and age. [Any kind of] church attendance is way down in many parts of the world. Perhaps there are comparable numbers for synagogue and mosque. Zealots of any stripe will claim it is the center, but those with a more gnostic approach to their religions will tell you differently. IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 10:54 AM

"They are prepared to destroy society to have their way"
Would that be the church or its opponents?
The former certainly has played a major part in destroying society and ruining peoples lives.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:18 AM

I'm not really in the mood for destroying society this afternoon...

.. maybe tomorrow...

no wait.. the mrs has plans for the weekend...

ok.. Monday then..

Monday... "Destroy Society".. there.. definite..

Now to put the kettle on and plug a guitar in....😎

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:50 AM

"Monday... "Destroy Society".. there.. definite.."
Tuesday maybe?
Goo film on tele Monday
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:53 AM

Should be "good film" - was thinking of the cake!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:54 AM

I see what you mean SRS, but although I'm presently an atheist, I think the Christianity has rather a good effect on our society.

I wouldn't like to see a purely secular society.

I have been very touched by the offers of help and prayers from Christians here and in my community.....and of course help from non practicing Christians and non believers here here.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 11:58 AM

"avoiding the pitfall of political ideology."

So, why do you go on and on, whining about what you feel is a so-called global liberal (aka a left of center political idealogy) agenda that is distroying existing societies.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 12:04 PM

"Although I'm presently an atheist"

Did you mean currently, or do you plan to be one soon?


""Presently. In both British English and North American English, presently can mean 'soon' or 'after a short time': I'll be with you presently. In North American English the usual meaning of presently is 'at the present time' or 'now':""

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 May 15 - 12:49 PM

I've never been a christian, or been that impressed by the idea of any other religion...

After a few years in my early 20s keenly studying moral philosophy,
I felt comfortable enough to settle on my identity as an agnostic
rather than atheist...

Around that same age I also accepted that I was 100% straight,
never had any gay inclination, and most probably never would:
..and I didn't need to feel at all apologetic to gay friends
for not being even the least bit bi-curious...
or tempted to 'try it at least once just for the experience'...

For a couple of years I was the token straight bloke in a gay flat share
and nights out to gay pubs..

I was young and had 'boy band' good looks, was aware gay blokes [and older women]
fancied me.
and just accepted and joked it off as ingredients in having an active social lif
in a big arty farty University City...

No big deal... certainly not the destruction of society...

So can't help being perplexed why in the 21st Century
well educated and seemingly brainy straight blokes in their 60s and 70s
are so fixated on what the gays are getting up to...?????????? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 15 - 01:40 PM

Christianity has rather a good effect on our society

Crusades. Inquisition. Murder. Torture. Robbery. Child abuse. Which has had the best effect do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 May 15 - 01:43 PM

Some people here seem to see all of life through the blinders of ideology. Their only goal is to see that their own ideology triumphs, and that all others are defeated. And since they are so in thrall of their own ideology, they believe that all others must be under similar control.

But most of us don't think that ideology is all that important. We may belong to groups of people who share our general way of thinking, but our thoughts are primarily our own, not something dictated by some authority. We sometimes think thoughts that annoy our friends and families and neighbors a bit, but the world doesn't come to an end because of our aberrant ideology. We may listen to advice from others, but mostly we live our own lives.

We have values and standards that might be called "morals," but we find no reason to impose our morals on the guy down the street. What sense would there be in that?

And this whole ideological world is rather strange to us.

-Joe-