BS: All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:51 PM

Good one punkie....been there, done that, got the mind fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:44 PM

GUEST - don't.. stop that now.. stop messing with my head.. that's creeping me out..

how do I know I don't know you either.. how do I know I truly know myself...

oh fuck... magic mushroom flashbacks... must not look in a mirror.. must not look in a mirror....😨

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:37 PM

btw.. never met a musket, let alone been pals with one...

How would you know, there are at least three of them....maybe more?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfokrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:30 PM

ok.. eff off any twat indulging in israel thread creep..

happy now GUEST...


btw.. never met a musket, let alone been pals with one...

but they seem interesting enough to waste some time in matey banter
and rich enough to buy me a a pint and a kebab
if we ever do cross paths socially...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:21 PM

now eff off out the gay marriage thread to one of the pro/anti Israel threads..

Tell that to your pal one of the Muskets.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:18 PM

GUEST - Jesus might forgive you for being a bellend even if we don't...😇

now eff off out the gay marriage thread to one of the pro/anti Israel threads..


punkfolkrocker [quarter jew by blood - that'll be about two and a half pints..]

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:13 PM

So Musket brings Israeli "terrorism" [sic] into the conversation and when it is challenged you cry troll. Par for the course I guess.

Pedants' corner: if you use [sic] you are quoting the precise expression of a person with the intention of distancing yourself from that particular use of words. Your problem is that the precise expression used by Musket, implied by your [sic], was not what you said it was. He did not, as you assert, say Israeli "terrorism". He said Israeli terrorism. The speech marks are yours alone and have no place alongside your [sic]. I thought I'd just point this out in case there are other uses of English that you don't have the faintest idea about. The word "antisemite", for example. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:11 PM

Antisemite.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:59 PM

Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:32 PM

So Musket brings Israeli "terrorism" [sic] into the conversation and when it is challenged you cry troll. Par for the course I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:17 PM

Troll.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:05 PM

And hoe it controls the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:53 PM

Waiting for you (plural) to start telling us about AIPAC.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:46 PM

"That's precisely the kind of shit antisemites like to toss around."
And that's just the kin
d of statement that Anti-Semites hide behind to defend Israeli terrorism
The Jewish people are not responsible for the terrorist acts of the Israeli regime - though people like you appear to be happy to blame them - as the definition says - "Antisemitic".
I still find it disgusting to find apologists for Sabra/Shatila crouching behind the sixx-million dead dead of Auschwitz in defence of their zealotry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:45 PM

Troll. Ignore, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:39 PM

Israel is a terrorist State with nuclear weapons

That's precisely the kind of shit antisemites like to toss around.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:38 PM

Not much of an advert for Christianity, is he, Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:34 PM

"Jew haters like to pretend otherwise."
Those who equate criticism of Israel with hating the Jews are Antisemitic
"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
European forum on Antisemitism
Israel is a terrorist State with nuclear weapons - be afraid - very afraid, anonymous guest.
"Jim, I think you are a dogmatic dodo.,"
And you are noted as an ill-mannered lout
" can I remind YOU, that you TOO have had your MOUTH kicked off one forum for your ill-mannered "
Pure invention - have never been disbarred from any forum in my life.
"im Carroll apart from what you say about traditional folk music - you son are a complete and utter f**king idiot, the most intolerant person I have ever encountered and the worst bigot I have ever come across."
Hm....
Coming from who it does, and thelanguage it is framed in, I'll take that as a compliment - when in doubt, go silent for a while, then sling abuse.
I take it you're not goinfg to qualify how we have all received our morals and ethics from the church then? - you have my arguments - bigoted or not, answer them rather than rsorting to name-calling - any schoolboy can do that (church influenced or not)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:18 PM

That is a particularly nasty troll post. If you know any Jew-haters, go and sort them out. You won't find any here. You will find critics of some of the actions of the Israeli regime, of course. You need a crash course in learning to tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:44 PM

Israeli terrorism

No such thing.
Israel is a victim of terrorism.
Jew haters like to pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:33 PM

Teribus says: All depends Joe on which end of the stick you are on. It (morality) is not a personal choice, community has to decide what is right and what is wrong, it is a consensus thing

That's true, Teribus...to a point. But when conduct has no effect on the community, then the community should have no right to govern conduct. Gay marriage has little or no effect on the general community, especially since most civilized nations have already declared gay sex to be legal.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:21 PM

"sanctimonious sod"......poor choice of insults from Team musket I think...   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:00 PM

I never got a moral compass from superstition Terribulus. Neither did my family.

There again, unlike you, we never saw Israeli terrorism as legitimate. We never equate religion with tolerance. We never fawned over Th*tcher.

We are better than you. Go fucking pray, sanctimonious sod.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:07 PM

Jim, I think you are a dogmatic dodo., That is my opinion, I am entitled to an opinion, same as anyone else.
Jim, can I remind YOU, that you TOO have had your MOUTH kicked off one forum for your ill-mannered behaviour,go and play with the dinosaurs in your folk museum.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:05 PM

So now we know. Teribus, Mr Irritable Xenophobe himself, got the values we all so admire from Christianity. I'm tempted to say I knew it, but I actually do know some quite nice people with Christian values. Nice one, Billyboy!

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:01 PM

The Quackers, in the USA and in Britain had a major impact on laws ending slavery. The link is some USA information that indicates some initiatives were going on very early to put an end to slavery


USA and slavery 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:48 PM

Additional information on slavery from the same web site:


Why was Slavery finally abolished in the British Empire? 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:44 PM

""But not until after it had funded the industrial revolution and the capacity to continue with the imperialism.""

Information in this link seems to support the above statement?

Britain and slavery 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:29 PM

IIRC we were the world leaders in the only serious attempt that has been made to eradicate it.

But not until after it had funded the industrial revolution and the capacity to continue with the imperialism.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:22 PM

You forgot to include imperialism and the slave trade.

Yes, you are right, those are two of the major reasons that refugees give for why they are flocking to western countries.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:18 PM

" imperialism and the slave trade.???

We were not unique in the former (Our "Empire being based upon trade not conquest) and as for the "slave trade" - IIRC we were the world leaders in the only serious attempt that has been made to eradicate it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:12 PM

Teribus - well I can easily think of people who would be a far worse prime minister than me...😱

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:05 PM

the benefits that our culture, freedoms, tolerance and prosperity and RELIGION have given us.

You forgot to include imperialism and the slave trade.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:47 PM

"How has the rest of the world coped without it.."

Rather poorer than we have judging by the thousands from other lands trying to get their share of the benefits that our culture, freedoms, tolerance and prosperity and RELIGION have given us.

"Church in Sunday School "

I went once [can't remember why] thought it was uncomfortably twee bollocks, and never went again...

Then again, I also resisted attempts to recruit me into the cubs and scouts, because even at such a young age I thought they were a suspiciously dodgy bunch....😟"

Which is all part and parcel of what made you the well loved and universally respected member of society that you are today PFR - very much surprised that you have not been asked to become our country's next Prime Minister.

"I like to think that "right" and "wrong" can be determined by logic. Moral codes from churches can be helpful input, I suppose, but I think most of us figure out such things for ourselves." - Joe Offer

All depends Joe on which end of the stick you are on. It is not a personal choice, community has to decide what is right and what is wrong, it is a consensus thing - in the case of Western European civilisation it is based on the teachings of Christ. Elsewhere in the world other religions provided the teaching - don't know about you but I have have yet to hear about hundreds of thousands of "refugees" trying to enter any Islamic Republic, or any country where any other religion has provided the moral compass as to how things are governed.

Ehmm DTG "Your implication is that anyone who has not had christian teaching does not know the difference between good and evil. What a load of tosh."

Not my implication at all - I am only referring to what it was that provided the moral compass within the British Isles - basically couldn't give a F**K about anywhere else I am NOT fighting to get into any of those countries as an immigrant illegal or otherwise - so our "Christian based civilisation" based upon "Christian Principles" of fairness, equality and tolerance ain't really that bad - at least it is a damned sight better than what passes for life in the countries these people are fleeing from. By the by DtG your parents, their parents and those who went before them would proudly declare themselves as followers of the Christian religion - THAT IS WHERE YOU GOT YOUR MORAL COMPASS FROM.

Jim Carroll apart from what you say about traditional folk music - you son are a complete and utter f**king idiot, the most intolerant person I have ever encountered and the worst bigot I have ever come across.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:38 PM

" is there any chance of negotiating with them, of establishing any sort of peaceful relationship with them?"
Some peopel Joe - but we seem to have an abudance of non-negotiables here - a prime example above.
"Winning battles isn't all it's cracked up to be"
Don't know if you're referring to me - not on my agenda - I leave that to those who keep claiming to have "won" something - easily checked.
"the proposed change is presented reasonably and diplomatically."
They've taken a long time in coming - homosexuality was a crime up to the nineties, and your church still refuses to accept it.
Once more you chose to distort my position, despite my having stated my case innumerable times
ONE MORE TIME - I do not hate Christianity - in many ways, I find it quite attractive when approached as a philosophy.
What I "hate" is a church that has has used the position it holds to abuse, persecute and dominate its own flock - still happening in the case of Gays
It's more than a little dishonest to hide behind religion to defend abuses that are so well-known and accepted that they have all but toppled the Church from the position it once held
You put that down to Christianity if you wish - I don't.
" give it a break, you dogmatic dodo"
I don't know who you think you are Dick, but can I remind you you that you've had your arse kicked off one forum for your ill-mannered behaviour and the way you're going, you'll end up the same here - learn how to address people and if you have a point, make it - don't you dare attempt to psychoananlyse me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:32 PM

I agree with Joe.
"The Famine hit this part of Ireland extremely badly, and at the height of it, Protestant preachers moved in and set up schools.
They offered soup to their pupils on the condition that they changed their religion - those that wouldn't were turned away.
'Souper' schools existed all over Ireland throughout The Famine and examples of similar behaviour are to be found in other parts of The British Empire - humane - tolerant - compassionate? - don't think so, but it was the remnants of that Empire that influenced my generation when we were growing up."
whatever influenced you, made you very bitter and very dogmatic, give it a break, you dogmatic dodo

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:37 PM

Jim, when you so soundly condemn people for the inhumanity, intolerance, self interest, subservience to injustice.... on display in some of these discussions - is there any chance of negotiating with them, of establishing any sort of peaceful relationship with them?

That's my point, same with the cake thing. Winning battles isn't all it's cracked up to be, because it rarely brings peace and harmony.

And you and so many others here reject the support of people who believe in winning by means other than battle - by conciliatory means, if possible. That rejection of all but the most stalwart supporters is self-defeating, I think. You end up being right, but you haven't solved the problem you're confronting.

I think the reason why gay marriage has become acceptable so quickly, is that most people are people of good will who will do what they think is fair - if the proposed change is presented reasonably and diplomatically.

In the end, I think it was fair-minded people who have (for the most part) resolved the problem of racial discrimination. It wasn't the aggressive tactics of the true-believers - it was the innate fair-mindedness of ordinary people. And I think the same is true for gay marriage in Ireland. This wasn't people hating Christianity - it was people voting for what they thought was fair, to allow other people to marry whomever they choose.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: frogprince
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:21 PM

"Might was right BC."

Taking the Bible literally, the 10 commandments date to about 1450 BC. Scholarship generally dates them to at least about 600 BC, possibly considerably earlier. Which makes the statement about B-C-morality absurd from even a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint, without even mentioning the best of other cultures from well before Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:52 AM

Was there a religious right, BC?
If so, few likely survived who disagreed with it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:48 AM

Might was right BC.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:43 AM

Was there no right and no wrong BC?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:20 AM

Let's see.. When we were small, we all played together in our street as I recall. Then the four kids whose parents ran the local pub went to bible classes at their local Catholic Church and were told that the non Catholic kids' parents were responsible for killing young men "back in Ireland." For a while our friends wouldn't play with us.

The good news is that the disgraceful priest lost a whole family from his flock and all four must be grandparents by now.

Terribulus must watch those documentaries of Attemborough filming family units of apes, looking after the whole community, working as a unit and reading the bible before flinging shit at each other...   Altruism. I think Darwin said something about it as a survival tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:56 AM

"Nobody is as bad as you describe people so often and so broadly. Not even you are that bad."
No one individual maybe Joe - thought a case can be made.....
But they are all aspects of '(in)humanity' that have appeared in some of the arguments on this forum at one time or another - suggest you tiptoe through some of the discussions on chemical weapons, The Middle East, The Irish Famine, Travellers or Ireland sometime.
"I like to think that "right" and "wrong" can be determined by logic"
Agreement at last - of course they can.
Such qualities cannot be taught - they are part of human development, acquired over time through environment, experience and contact with others
Who on earth is going to accept brotherly love from teachers who try to beat it into you, or thou shalt not kill from an organisation that sends generations of young people to war, or blesses bombs....?
It is nonsense to suggest that such teaching produces the humanity or compassion that I associate with being human.
Down the road a mile from here is a Georgian building, 'Ball's School', (now a still tyre changing business) still know under this name locally for it's history.
The Famine hit this part of Ireland extremely badly, and at the height of it, Protestant preachers moved in and set up schools.
They offered soup to their pupils on the condition that they changed their religion - those that wouldn't were turned away.
'Souper' schools existed all over Ireland throughout The Famine and examples of similar behaviour are to be found in other parts of The British Empire - humane - tolerant - compassionate? - don't think so, but it was the remnants of that Empire that influenced my generation when we were growing up.
You become what you are by experience, not in the classroom.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:47 AM

who was it taught you what was "right" and what was "wrong"? What was good and what was "evil"

My Mother and Father of course. And they were taught by their parents and they by their parents and so on. Until I was older I had no idea of the concept of god or a higher deity apart from what I was told and what my little mind could figure out itself, incorrectly. I suspect everyone is the same. When I was naughty I was not punished by god, I was punished by mt parents. When I was good it was they who gave me rewards, not a man in a frock. And it was they who gave gave me love and shelter, not the church. Nothing whatsoever to do with religion. My concepts of good and bad were formed long before I had any idea of the metaphysical. As, I suspect, were everyones.

Your implication is that anyone who has not had christian teaching does not know the difference between good and evil. What a load of tosh.

Joe - Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:13 AM

oh... and.. Teribus - I just checked the calendar...

It's 2015 where most of us live... not 1915.....😬

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:58 AM

I like to think that "right" and "wrong" can be determined by logic. Moral codes from churches can be helpful input, I suppose, but I think most of us figure out such things for ourselves.

The Golden Rule (do unto others...) is a very good general principle for living, but I think it's more common sense than religious dictate. I think that we do good works because there is satisfaction in goodness - not because it's what somebody else told us to do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:49 AM

btw..

"You, like everyone else would have been taught by your parents, primarily your Mother,
then by the Church in Sunday School "

I went once [can't remember why] thought it was uncomfortably twee bollocks, and never went again...

Then again, I also resisted attempts to recruit me into the cubs and scouts,
because even at such a young age
I thought they were a suspiciously dodgy bunch....😟

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:38 AM

Well.. there's a neat historical summary
of the inescapable all engulfing suffocating domination of christianity...

How has the rest of the world coped without it..

Pity all those Chinese and other alien uncivilised cultures
with absolutely no sense of right or wrong...!!!??? 😧

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:15 AM

"Knowing what is good and bad has nothing to do with Christianity"

OK then Gnome I will ask you the same question I asked Jim - who was it taught you what was "right" and what was "wrong"? What was good and what was "evil" Unless of course you are trying to tell us that you popped out of the womb inherently aware of those concepts.

You, like everyone else would have been taught by your parents, primarily your Mother, then by the Church in Sunday School and then at School. IIRC your parents, or at least one of them is/was Polish who came to the UK to fight the Nazis - if so then the chances are that he would have been brought up himself and taught the values and concepts we are talking about within the strict teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which was and still is very strong in Poland - it was after all one of the institutions, along with the "Solidarity" Movement that helped to bring down communist domination of the country in the 1980s.

And as you brought it up, over 2000 and more years ago Gnome, in these islands, the guy who wielded the club, axe, or sword the best dictated what was right and what was wrong, what was acceptable and what was not and it changed as those men died and were succeeded by others. Then as time passed and invasion followed invasion those invading brought in their own "rules" and imposed them on the indigenous population. The first time there was ever any thread of common understanding on what was "good" and what was "evil" came about with the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire and beyond it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:09 PM

Jim Carroll sez: the inhumanity, intolerance, self interest, subservience to injustice.... on display in some of these discussion.

Jim, your dramatic condemnations of nearly everyone are really quite preposterous. Nobody is as bad as you describe people so often and so broadly. Not even you are that bad.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:36 PM

Don't mention Tesco, Jim. Teribus loves all that super-Christian minimum-wage, fleece- the-producers, taxpayer-subsidised private enterprise, you know, and the divil take the hindmost...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:14 PM

"has been the teaching and ethics of the "Christian religion"
This ir bizarre nonsense
The teaching, what there was, in the education system I experience, were the values of Empire - still being taught long after I left school.
My younger sisters were taught in the Comprehensive system - somewhat changed by then, where religion played no part whatever in their education.
The Church of England system was a bit of a joke anyway - if you proclaimed your religion as 'none', with the doctor, at hospitals.... wherever - it was invariably entered as C of E - the recognised equivalent of "none".
All academic anyway - we didn't take our principle and values from school - like our knowledge and opinions, we took them from everywhere - from our families, school-friends, acquaintances, from what we read, what films we saw, from workmates, from our own experiences - not one source, but many a distillation of our lives.
Were it down to what we were taught, we would all be the same - the same moral standards shared by everybody, the same view, the same human outlook....
We're all different, different objectives, different standards different morality, different values.
There is a vast difference in us all, even among Christians.
I don't recognise most of the morality and behaviour on display on Mudcat from self-declared Christians (mustn't mention names) as resembling that of the Christians I have spent time with - most of whom would be as sickened as I often am, by the inhumanity, intolerance, self interest, subservience to injustice.... on display in some of these discussion.
That we got out values from one source it utter nonsense    (and a bit of a joke, really, but please feel free to carry on - "every little helps" as the man from Tesco's says
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:22 PM

Well, certainly Christian values have taught Teribus be so meek, mild, accommodating, understanding, fair-minded, sympathetic to those less fortunate or resourceful than himself, so polite and so kind. If that's what Christian values do for one, think I'll stick to my dissolute, paganistic ways, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 06:13 PM

No it isn't, Teribus. Knowing what is good and bad has nothing to do with Christianity. If you need the church to show you the difference there is something inherently wrong with you.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:48 PM

so Christian teaching is discounted because some of its teachers had feet of clay, or worse still were hypocrites ?. sounds like some kind of fallacy to me. no, despite the failures, british society and law was once informed by the bible , but less so now.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:31 PM

DtG before you go off pin head dancing again I asked Jim a question I was not talking about 2000 years ago I was talking about the hear and now and the last two generations, we are talking about the British Isles. And between Jim Carroll's answer and PFR's answer I think that it is understood that the template used for basing what is considered "good/bad/right/wrong/acceptable/unacceptable" has been the teaching and ethics of the "Christian religion" - in it's evolution "Protestantism" taught us to constantly challenge and question.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:11 PM

""not a word either for or against about gays or cakes...""

It is clearly there, in invisable ink:

Regardless of location or circumstances, thou shall not show respect, nor compassion, towards gays.

Thou will defend Christian bakers against the "gay hordes", regardless of circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:02 PM

"all based on "Christian" teaching and "Christian" ethics "
I went to a Church of England School, where Religious Education consisted of singing hymns in the morning assembly - no bible lessons, no Christian philosophy classes - just hymns and prayers.
In the Secondary Modern System where I received my education, the main aim wass to turn out factory workers
I was told a few months before leaving (by a maths teacher) that all I needed to know when I left school was to tot up my pay packet at the end of the week.
The Christian ethics I received was that the British Empire was great, that God was good and and those who didn't worship him (not her, you notice) were bad people to be pitied and were damned.
Thank you for making my day with your fine display of Christian arrogance - almost a caricature.
A reminder of how religion works with children.
Jesuit motto:
"Give me a child unitil he is seven and I will give you the man"
The Jesuits were renowned by my Catholic educated mates for beating the shit into children - a truly brutal crowd - lots of 'goodness' there.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Will Fly
Date: 29 May 15 - 02:30 PM

PFR & Jim Carroll having been born and brought up in the UK then the guiding principles that determined right and wrong, good and evil, what was acceptable and what was not is all based on "Christian" teaching and "Christian" ethics - doesn't matter whether or not your parents or even grandparents believed or not, they were all born into a society and in a country where the church was generally respected as were those responsible for education - both went hand in glove.

Hah! Is that why my great-grandparents and their forefathers before them, and millions like them, them sweated their guts out in mines, factories and agriculture for pittances, while the Great and Good of Society - guided in their principles by the Church - lived a quite different life. I suppose that was acceptable at the time, as was the Peterloo Massacre or perhaps the mass emigration of agricultural workers from East Anglia in the 1830s - acts in which the clergy played a prominent part. Shall we add the Poor Laws and the miseries of the Union Workhouses to the list of occurrences in this Christian country of ours?

Christian teaching and ethics be buggered. I can tell you that my own family's opinion of the Church and its teachings was unrepeatable.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 May 15 - 02:26 PM

oh... yeah... and the 10 commandments....????

just took a quick look at them for the first time in 30 odd years...

not a word either for or against about gays or cakes...

...hadn't they been invented yet,
or were the compilers of the 10 comm's just not that bothered either way ??????? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:44 PM

right and wrong, good and evil, what was acceptable and what was not is all based on "Christian" teaching and "Christian" ethics

So, more than 2000 years ago there was no teaching of what was good or bad? That one really takes the biscuit. Do you really think that without the church everyone would be going round murdering, robbing and raping? All I can assume is that you are judging others by their own standards.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:26 PM

... and going back a bit further...

It can easily be argued the 10 commandments were a smart move
to codify principles of stable social coexistence
that scattered pre christian tribes had arrived at
through centuries of expedience and trial and error...???

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:14 PM

Teribus - welll... errrr... yes... obviously... 😣

.. and since the age of reason and enlightenment
there are positive options to adapt the best of ingrained historically socialised christian ethos of 'law 'n' order'
and move forward with a rational secular humanist alternative...

great... innit...😎

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 15 - 12:51 PM

PFR & Jim Carroll having been born and brought up in the UK then the guiding principles that determined right and wrong, good and evil, what was acceptable and what was not is all based on "Christian" teaching and "Christian" ethics - doesn't matter whether or not your parents or even grandparents believed or not, they were all born into a society and in a country where the church was generally respected as were those responsible for education - both went hand in glove.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 May 15 - 12:10 PM

good and bad / right and wrong / justice and injustice ...????

all learnt from my parents and extended family - none of them church goers...

whilst supplemented by the more benign / less malignant influences of christianity at school and in wider society...

Parents on principle declined to have me and sibling christened and brainwashed

They wanted us to arrive at our own sense of belief and identity
and decide for or against religion ourselves when we were older and educated enough...😎

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:56 AM

"Serious question for you Jim - who was it that initially taught you what was "good" and what was "evil"?"
Like to think they were family values based on humanism (with a small 'H') - mixed influences
All my immediate family were atheists, their values were a mixture of political and church and humanist
Really extremely mixed up - family story tells of my grandmother throwng a stone at Mosely Rally and hitting the speaker, for which she was arrested.
She was said to have claimed "that stone was guided by the hand of God".
Don't know how 'is ''oliness would have reacted to that.
Thanks to my dad being excommunicated and blacklisted for fighting in Spain, my mother was forced to bring us up alone.
The only time she went to church was when we buried her.
What's the point of your question - please suggest that they could have only learned goodness from the church - that really would make my day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:35 AM

"If anybody feels they need to be a Christian to be good and thoughtful and neighbourly and human.... they've lost before they start."

Serious question for you Jim - who was it that initially taught you what was "good" and what was "evil"? What template directed their teaching with regard to what was "right" and what was "wrong"?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:38 AM

"It is not Christianity which causes problems, but the churches "

A good point. Obe of the main reasons that, while a Christian by birth, and remain so, I never closely associate with any one of these organizations.

But, actions take people-who are these people?

When it comes to the RC church (such in mostnof Ireland) , I recall Joe O indicating it is not the RC church members who control some of the bad aspects within this church. So, what/who is "this church"?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:34 AM

Hang on. Go back a bit...

Akenaton just said that gay marriage has nothing to do with gays but they are being used for political purposes.

I didn't realise political purposes had such fall out. Poor buggers, imagine having to put up with the right to enjoyment, love, companionship and commitment of marriage. Poor sods, I bet they really hate "liberals " for fighting for their rights! Not to mention the terms I just used, buggers and sods being used in the conversational sense not the disgusting sense I heard the terms used on the radio yesterday by a bishop...,

Keith keeps mentioning civil unions. Why? Are you saying they should be good enough for gay people?

I really don't get how people can still hide their nasty side behind the transparent cloak of religion. If Jesus had existed, these are the types of fool he would have exposed and got angry about.

Joe. I really do take issue with your assertion that bigotry must be met half way and saying no to intolerance is intolerance itself.

No. There is no need, desire or reason to accommodate anything that sees people as not deserving whatever society offers their neighbours. Diversity should be seen as enriching society, not giving society reason to hate each other

I suggest you see if you can find something in your bible about it and let your mates with the long black frocks know.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 08:30 AM

"at least he is brave enough to put his views plainly."
Thank you for that Ake but bravery doesn't come into it.
Over the last ten years it has become relatively easy to discuss veiws critical of the church
The priest in so more the figure of fear he once was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:38 AM

It is not Christianity which causes problems, but the churches who overstep the bounds of their territory and dabble in politics - that, hopefully, is coming to an end in Ireland.
Jim Carroll
I agree, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:34 AM

No, Keith suggested that all that had changed was the use of a word, both Jim and Steve responded that the church had been weakened by the result. Jim concluded that this was the most important result.

I find myself in agreement with some things that Jim posts regarding organised religion and at least he is brave enough to put his views plainly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:25 AM

""It has been claimed by some posters here ""

Aka, "it has been claimed by ake".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:22 AM

It has been claimed by some posters here that the most important result of this referendum to accept homosexuality into mainstream society, is the weakening of the Christian church.

I have maintained right from the beginning that this issue is being pushed by "liberal" activists, who have no care whatsoever for the welfare of homosexuals, but rather use them via the media as a weapon to attack Christianity.

If they really cared, they would be showing far more concern for the horrific health rates amongst male homosexuals and endeavouring to find out the cause, instead of making repeated attempts to conceal the severity of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:18 AM

Ditto .

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:09 AM

Your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:53 AM

Sorry, I put more "faith" in grounded historic accounts than loose propaganda statements that "use" Christiaity to promote a clearly anti-gay "ideaology".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:35 AM

RE was well into moral decline before Christ, the acceptance of Christianity certainly hastened the demise of an immoral and brutish regime.

Your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:20 AM

It seems (from this historic article) that, rather than strengthen it, the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine in 313 was a major factor in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

the fall of the Roman Empire 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 15 - 05:09 AM

Steve, why is it that your accusations always sound so much like propaganda?

Possibly because you don't agree with them.

Certainly, churches have had their problems.

Many of which I've exonerated. Read my post again.

But I've been in the Catholic Church all my life and it's mostly been good for me.

Smug????

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 15 - 04:07 AM

"Steve, none of my Christian friends or neighbours are Nazi's or Nazi sympathisers"
Actions maketh the man - not political alignments
Christians are just as likely to behave as badly as no Christians - former Yugoslavia, Southern States of America, Christians slaughtering Muslims in Africa, the various 'Christian' divisions in Northern Ireland......
Christianity is in no way special and certainly does not make for better people - people themselves do that.
The problems arise with those who organise religion and use it for gain, political influence, or simply to abuse the authority it brings - plenty of examples of that in the present day - Ireland is still picking up the pieces after decades of Christian abuse of authority and people.
The Christians we have spent our lives associating with, mainly through our interest in music, were wonderful people, not because of their beliefs, but because they were wonderful people who happened to go to church.
They treated our non-religion with respect, I still recollect the splashes of holy water on the back of my neck as we left their homes, flicked by the singers because we had forgotten to 'bless ourselves' from the little font by the door as we left.
Not so long ago, we were shown a letter from a friend, long dead, which mentions our visits.
Is said, "they are not believers, but they are probably better Christians than most of those who go to church every week" - cherish that.   
THat sort of respect is more I can say for many of the churchmen we met.
There really isn't anything special about being a Christian, but occasionally it brings a frightening arrogance that you have to be a believer to be good - a wonderful debate in The letter page of the Irish Times on that one.
Any belief can bring bigotry - plenty of it on display here, and during the Referendum campaign.
If anybody feels they need to be a Christian to be good and thoughtful and neighbourly and human.... they've lost before they start.
noe nof Ake's friends are Nazi sympathisers - history is full of Christians who behaved like Nazis, and it is within my lifetime that Pope Pius XII was turning his back on Italian Jews being herded into Hitlers's gas chambers.
This is not to mention the support the church gave to Franco and Pinochet and King Leopold.... and some of history's greatest monsters - good Christians all!
It is not Christianity which causes problems, but the churches who overstep the bounds of their territory and dabble in politics - that, hopefully, is coming to an end in Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:54 AM

Steve, why is it that your accusations always sound so much like propaganda? Certainly, churches have had their problems. But I've been in the Catholic Church all my life and it's mostly been good for me. I think that's the nature of life. There's mostly good, and some bad.

And some people can see only the bad.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:14 AM

Steve, none of my Christian friends or neighbours are Nazi's or Nazi sympathisers.......the only fascists I have encountered lately are your little gang of political ideologists.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:09 AM

Bill, I don't really understand your link, what were the results of the study and reasons for retraction seem very sketchy?

The primary author seems to oppose retraction?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:05 AM

My God!.....Does nobody remember what happened to the Roman and Greek Empires? :0)


I think we may be in for a re-run!

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:44 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/science-retracts-gay-marriage-study_n_7463098.html

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 15 - 06:17 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?

Dave, you forgot to mention the rampant antisemitism acquiesced in for many decades by the Catholic Church before the Third Reich, which helped to soften people up for the Holocaust.   There was also the silence from Pius XII on the deportation of hundreds of Jews from under his nose to death camps, and the way in which this saintly man helped to facilitate the escape of Nazi war criminals to South America. Then there's Mother Teresa telling the poor that their lot was a virtue that they should not only not fight against but a virtue that they should actually celebrate (and she did much more than that). I hear she's in line for a sainthood, just in case anyone tells us that these things are all in the past. We could also mention the effect on the HIV epidemic in Africa, especially on women, of local holy men preaching against the use of condoms. Rather good, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:36 PM

Punkfolkrocker:An interesting article by history professor and author Robert Frakes:

Romans and gay relationships 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 04:08 PM

Interesting point punkfolkrocker-I stumbled on this site awhile back:


gay men and Eunuchs 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:32 PM

...errrmm... wasn't gay love considered kinda manly & noble in the Roman and Greek Empires BC......???????

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:24 PM

""However, I do consider that Jesus audience would have understood that homosexual activity was an abomination and therefore Jesus did not need to spell it out""

Kinda reminds me of The Life Of Brian, where Brian threw a sandal at folks following him (to discourage their persuit) and his eager followers, who mistook him for a prophet, saw it as a sign and began throwing sandals.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 May 15 - 02:09 PM

I presume you only mistakenly misinterpreted me , joe. I provided the quote from Leviticus as Steve had asked another poster for the reference. However, I do consider that Jesus audience would have understood that homosexual activity was an abomination and therefore Jesus did not need to spell it out, when he referred to genesis to define marriage as a man leaving his parents and being joined to his wife.   I am of course aware of the ceremonial and social laws, and I do not rely on Leviticus alone for my beliefs about this subject. There is a fair bit in the nt too.   And actually, I do think that govt has a certain amount of responsibility to maintain moral standards. I don't suppose polygamous marriage will be legalised just yet, or other possible unions not so far legitimised.

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-

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 03:36 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: 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 - 03:17 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 02:18 PM

Good post.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: BigDaddy
Date: 27 May 15 - 01:55 PM

It's always iffy and unfortunate when basic civil rights are put to popular vote. For that matter, it's ridiculous that courts have to weigh in at all in what is basically a contract agreed upon by two consenting adults. I'm glad this went the way it did, but if we had voted on interracial marriage here in the States fifty years ago, it would likely still be illegal. There are far too many cases throughout history where majority rule has been a bad thing. Think Reagan, Bushes, Nixon, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 01:46 PM

From WIKI.

"

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests,[12][not in citation given] although the John Jay Report reported that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s",[13] and available figures for homosexual priests in the United States range from 15–58%.[12][14] A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that 9 percent of priests identified themselves as homosexual, and 6 percent as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side." Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order, 17 percent of the priests said "definitely," and 27 percent said "probably." 53 percent of priests who were ordained in the last 20 years (1982-2002) affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[14]

Anonymous studies have also suggested a prevalence of homosexual leanings in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Studies by Wolf and Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the United States of America.[15] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[16]

Anecdotal press reports from anonymous sources suggest that the incidence of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood is much higher than in the general population.[17][18] It is[vague] theorized part of the over-representation might be caused by heterosexual priests leaving in order to marry. But it may also have much to do with the Church offering a perceived 'sanctuary' for many men living in societies where homosexuality is criminalised or shunned, especially reducing the pressure by families to marry and have children.[citation needed]

One report suggested that since the mid-1980s Roman Catholic priests in the United States were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population; with most of the cases contracted through same-sex relations, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates. A followup study done the next year by the Kansas City Star found AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied.[19]

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

My words were
"there is some sense in this statement, although I am not sure about the term vast majority[ without statistical evidence]I would have used the term a sizeable proportion.
jim if someone has homosexual sex they have had homosexual sex, to say that they did not have gay sex because they were in a single sex prison is nonsense, it could be argued that they are bisexual, bisexual means being both homosexual and hetrosexual, it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex"
I fail to see what sweeping statement i have made, I have stated facts, if someone has had homosexual sex, they have had homosexual sex, but could be bisxual, that is enjoy both heterosexual and homosexual sex. if they enjoyed homosexual sex because heterosexual was not available they still enjoyed it.
I must make it clear that i am in favour of gay equality.
however that does not alter my opinion that Jims analysis is inaccurate

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 12:38 PM

Note: the use of the terms "well documented fact" and "generally recognized" are "most often" not what they "seem so be". IMO, they frequently fall under the same catagory as the often-used term "of coursetit is true, it's based on common knowledge".

They are weasel words. Look it up!

I can't say that I get worked up about what kind of sex (if any) prisoners, priests and nuns get up to among themselves. My only criterion for getting worked up would be if I suspected that the sex was non-consensual or exploitative in some way. Otherwise, it's none of my business and I don't find it very interesting. It doesn't seem to inform our discussion in any meaningful way.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:55 AM

"You can't talk about fucking, people say you're dirty. But if you talk about killing somebody, that's cool."― Richard Pryor

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:51 AM

or.... "How the Right is Freeing Killer Speech" ... 😶

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:45 AM

" 'How the Left is Killing Free Speech'."
As liberal as you can get, as far as I can judge!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:43 AM

The latest book by Kristen Powers, well known for her liberal views... Name of the book, 'How the Left is Killing Free Speech'...look it up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:30 AM

"I have been told...."
Which sums up the situation perfectly
Whatever we "know" about homosexuality in the church is based on non-information and assumption
Thanks to prejudice and persecution, we don't know how many homosexuals there are - full stop.
If that is the situation in "real life" how on earth can we rely on sweeping statements such ad Dick's and Ake's
Once you start t indulge in such flights of fancy, you ivevitably end up claiming all homosexuals are, priests are... potential rapists, paedophiles.... whatever (all these suggestions have been made at one time or another - dangerous ground)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:20 AM

jim,
Joe equated homosexuality with Neo-Nazism, and you with paedophelia and incest.
Neither statement is true.

Despite your claims to the contrary, on the discussions both of the bakery being found guilty of bigotry and on the referendum result, you have shown your opposition to gay marriage and to homosexuality in general.

No I have not.
I have always supported gay marriage going back years and have no issues with homosexuality.

Richard,
IF those convicted had been BME or Muslim you would have been ranting away about the evils of those sorts of people

Not true Richard.
Over the last few years there have been a number of gangs of mostly BP heritage men convicted of child grooming and rape, none of which I have posted a word about.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 May 15 - 11:08 AM

There's no evidence because no one's going to answer such a survey truthfully.

I have been told that there's a high level of homosexuality among priests and nuns because you're not looked at funny for not being married; in most professions, lack of a spouse isn't an advantage if you want promotion, but for obvious reasons it's not a disadvantage if you're a priest or nun.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:48 AM

"by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule."
THere is no evidence to suggest that the priesthood encourages homosexuality, or that there is a greater or lesser percentage of homosexuals inside the church as there are outside.
"it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex."
Nor does it mean they are either gay or straight - it means they took advantage of what was at hand to fulfill a basic need
The same applies to sailors (or even sheep-farmers on isolated farms, if you wish ro reduce it to its most basic)
If you ever feel like going to Wormwood Scrubs and telling all those who indulge in same-sex gratification, that they are gay, please let me know well in advance so I can get tickets - wouldn't miss it for the world!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:35 AM

We've now been denounced by the Vatican and the Westboros. Happiness!

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 27 May 15 - 10:15 AM

Re Ake's comment,"The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other,"
Click here

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:44 AM

It seems that many people are inordinately concerned with the sex lives of others. Gayness--if there is such a word--is determined long before we are born. See "We Are Our Brains" by DF Swaab.

Stating an opinion about gays or hereros or bis is one thing. Stating that opinion while ignoring or perverting the facts is another. But then we all know that opinions are like arseholes: everybody's got one.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:28 AM

"The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, they have much more important things to contend with, like getting a job, bringing up a family and providing a proper standard of living.

All it has done is weaken the church, but the church brought much of its problems upon itself. by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule.

If the church is to regain any credibility, the celibacy rule must be scrapped and married priests with young children taken on.
how can they say they protect family values when their priests are supposed to be celibate and a very large percentage are homosexual?"   
    there is some sense in this statement, although I am not sure about the term vast majority[ without statistical evidence]I would have used the term a sizeable proportion.
jim if someone has homosexual sex they have had homosexual sex, to say that they did not have gay sex because they were in a single sex prison is nonsense, it could be argued that they are bisexual, bisexual means being both homosexual and hetrosexual, it does not mean they do not enjoy homosexual sex.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:27 AM

Note: the use of the terms "well documented fact" and "generally recognized" are "most often" not what they "seem so be". IMO, they frequently fall under the same catagory as the often-used term "of coursetit is true, it's based on common knowledge".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:25 AM

Keith, don't be faux-naif. You know perfectly well that IF those convicted had been BME or Muslim you would have been ranting away about the evils of those sorts of people. And you Ake. And you Terribilis.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:20 AM

My understanding is the King James version of the Bible, which many use, was translated in the early 17th century - to an archaic form of modern English that was used in that period. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. But, I suspect most everyone here has that knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 09:16 AM

I never at any time said that there was a link between "celibacy" and "homosexuality".....exactly the opposite IMO

It is a well documented fact that there are large numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood, studies range from 15% to 50%...a figure of around 30% is generally recognised as being accurate.

It has been explained to me here that this situation had been allowed to continue for purely economic reasons, as it is cheaper to employ a single man than a married man with a wife and family.

What you have written regarding the weakening of the church, bears out all I have been saying about the real agenda of you "liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:51 AM

"how has this changed things utterly?"
You reall don't get it do you - or you choose to ignore it!
This vote has broken the stranglehold of the church - hopefully it will no longer have the controlling say on fundamental questions on which it has no expertise and no consensus of support.
It is true that homosexuals still have a long way to overcome bigotry such as that expressed in virtually all your postings on the subject, in order to win full recognition as human beings, but the removal of the church from the equation is a major step.
By the way, the link between celibacy and homosexuality has long been dismissed and that of clerical abuse and homosexuality has never been an issue (just as same-gender sex in prisons has never been regarded as homosexuality)
"Joe and I, are both celebrating the result."
Apparently, little more than lip service, particularly in your case.
Joe equated homosexuality with Neo-Nazism, and you with paedophelia and incest.
Despite your claims to the contrary, on the discussions both of the bakery being found guilty of bigotry and on the referendum result, you have shown your opposition to gay marriage and to homosexuality in general.
Sorry - go read what you have written in full.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:47 AM

"Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation."

You are correct English was not spoken in Biblical times....how astute of you.

If you had read the post that prompted my intervention you would have understood the point behind it. Instead, whoever you are, you choose to troll. As you have nothing to say, I suggest you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:29 AM

"Westboro Baptist Church gets Ireland's flag wrong and declares it hates the Ivory Coast"

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/westboro-baptist-church-gets-irelands-flag-wrong-declares-it-hates-ivory-coast-1502854

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:25 AM

""The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other,""

I suspect not so on the vote in Ireland, where the vote rate was healthy, and from reports, the folks on either side seemed really "tuned in" to the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:12 AM

The thread title is ridiculous, a tiny proportion of 1.5% of Irish people who are homosexual, will take advantage of the new legislation, just like every other country which has adopted homosexual "marriage"......how has this changed things utterly?
The vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, they have much more important things to contend with, like getting a job, bringing up a family and providing a proper standard of living.

All it has done is weaken the church, but the church brought much of its problems upon itself. by encouraging homosexuals into the priesthood through the celibacy rule.

If the church is to regain any credibility, the celibacy rule must be scrapped and married priests with young children taken on.
how can they say they protect family values when their priests are supposed to be celibate and a very large percentage are homosexual?

it looks hypocritical.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:03 AM

Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation.

You are correct English was not spoken in Biblical times....how astute of you.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 15 - 08:00 AM

Quick Keith, Quick Terry, quick Ake, someone else to rant about. Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

Now there is an example of your classic troll post. Thirty days in jail for you for that offense Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:58 AM

I fail to see what Richard's link has to do with the discussion?

These men are paedophiles, very ill and very dangerous.

They exist in all strata's of society. thankfully their crimes are exceedingly rare.

They are an aberration if I controlled the justice ministry, these people would be locked up in a secure psychiatric ward for life, or perhaps put out of their misery.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:49 AM

The Old Testament, to be sure, leaves no doubt that sex between men is an "abomination".

Chapter and verse, please. Incidentally, no-one in biblical times ever said "thou". That's someone's translation.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:45 AM

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. 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?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:40 AM

Richard, your link is to a report on a group that raped very young children and babies.
Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

I am disgusted that you assumed they would be BME.
And, what is a foreign religion Richard?

Why do you never just question or challenge what people actually say?
Because you can't presumably.
Some lawyer you are.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:35 AM

I see that Thompson appears to have demonstrated that Keith was either ignorant or mendacious.

Perhaps you could explain that statement Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 15 - 07:33 AM

those who rejoice common sense and decency make it clear they see medieval nonsense as irrelevant. Kind of confusing when the marketing for Jesus usually shows happy smiling people hugging each other.

Some other forum presumably Musket.
Two of the three here posting from a Christian viewpoint, Joe and I, are both celebrating the result.

Only two here opposed gay marriage and only one of those on religious grounds.

You are just using this issue to continue your usual attacks on Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 15 - 06:47 AM

Quick Keith, Quick Terry, quick Ake, someone else to rant about. Shame none of them appear to be BME or adherents of a foreign religion, innit?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32413502

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 May 15 - 05:55 AM

Morality, religion, and politics can be great topics of fruitful conversation and discussion, provided all participants are really interested in learning something.

The word "debate" is used when the participants have chosen sides (usually by vested interests such as a party mandate) and merely want to convince readers or listeners who are still undecided. This seems to be the case with most Mudcat threads. In such a context, the best tactics is not to shout at each other, but to imagine those readers: will I make an impression of superior argumentation? --

The Old Testament, to be sure, leaves no doubt that sex between men is an "abomination". So is sex with animals (where women are also mentioned, in the third person - "thou" is always a man). As for same-sex marriage, David and Jonathan formed a highly praised "covenant" - whatever that meant.

The very notion of sexuality changes drastically with the times. The idea of a "sexual identity" would have been completely incomprehensible 300 years ago, let alone in Biblical times. Sex between men was (and is, in other cultures) often viewed as a form of onanism, sex between women as simply nonexistent by definition.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:15 AM

"I have to say that I can't be a supporter of abortion."
Not even in these circumstances?
Abortion is not just to control population - there are many reasons why it is both necessary and preferable
Your church, up to now, has denied access to any reliable form of women controlling their lives, using the crudest and most frightening threats to preventing them doing so - the end result has been over-population among the poorest, misery, illness and even the death of the mother on many occasions.
After careful consideration, most civilised nations have reached a humane and practical solution, yet the church remains adamant on the subject.
As far as the church is concerned, a woman's role is to produce babies, and the arguments used are not un-similar to those used to demonise homosexuality.
Hopefully, that will end in the foreseeable future in "Holy Ireland" - I certainly hope that it happens in my lifetime.
]t really isn't the business of a self-appointed sect of celibate male mystics to decide what takes place in the bedrooms of the world.
As with many of the arguments against same-sex marriage, the decision of the father is yet another red-herring fathers have as little say in producing a family as do mothers - decisions of whether to have children should be a matter for both without the intervention of the man in the collar.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 27 May 15 - 04:00 AM

It might be useful to differentiate between being "religious" and views / influence of a church and what they think they can tell people to set their moral compass by.

As Peter has just pointed out, the Vatican has called this a defeat for humanity. It I s possible to heap scorn and contempt on that corrupt festering criminal cess pit of a club without questioning someone's take on superstition.

This isn't about religion at all but it is certainly about those people and organisations who bastardise the faith of their believers to promote hatred, discrimination and bigotry.

Isn't it amazing that those who promote discrimination here seem to use a God concept to justify their shameful stance whilst those who rejoice common sense and decency make it clear they see medieval nonsense as irrelevant. Kind of confusing when the marketing for Jesus usually shows happy smiling people hugging each other.

Poor Joe. I really do see that you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water, but it isn't half leaving a scummy tidemark these days..

"Defeat for humanity..." Jesus wept, as the ironic saying goes.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 May 15 - 12:01 AM

The Pope will take it in stride, Jim, as will most Catholics. But yeah, when Ireland and Poland legalize abortion, some Vatican diplomat will use his bully pulpit to decry a "defeat for humanity."

And I won't pay much attention to him.

I have to say that I can't be a supporter of abortion. I would much rather see population controlled by contraception. But as with gay marriage, this is a personal decision that should be made by the people involved - not by anybody else. I'm not really ready to concede many rights to the father in this situation, although it is good if he can be included in the decision.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 07:30 PM

Just watched a debate in the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and it seems the people who fought for the Yes vote are now turning their attention to changing the law on pregnancy termination in Ireland - the Pope will NOT be a happy man - god love 'im
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:08 PM

Well I'm very suspicious of the Bible, but I do want to know what makes believers tick. I appear to have hit on one of those Keith/Guardian/Geoffrey Wheatcroft moments, but with pete this time. He seems to be a bit of a Bible literalist, yet he takes apparently simple and transparent language and fashions it into words that were neither said nor, as far as I can glean, intended. That's quite interesting. One hopes it's not typical. I suspect it isn't. Anyway, I conclude that neither Jesus, if he existed, nor the gospel writers claiming to be quoting him, mentioned anything about marriage having to be between a man and a woman. And far be it from me to remind pete, a far greater Bible aficionado than myself, but one shouldn't really have to stretch beyond all reason the words of a man who enjoined that speech should be yea yea and nay nay.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:01 PM

Meanwhile in other news the Vatican declares the referendum result a defeat for humanity

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:50 PM

It was very badly drafted then.
It would have been much easier to just correct that.
You would not have needed a referendum.

Thanks for the advice ;)

Joe Offer, of course I don't want all discussion on the Bible suppressed; I love nothing better than a rousing debate on the meaning of Strait Is the Gate. What I want is for every thread not to be dragged into the single obsession of Bible-lovers. Have a separate thread for us.

Otherwise every thread becomes like the 46A bus, when you're liable to find someone buttonholing you to talk about the true meaning of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or the canons of the Elders of Zion. While I'm happy to talk about the former, at times, though not really about the latter - a step too far in loopiness for me - if a thread is started that's intended to talk about, say, the referendum on marriage equality, or, say, the vote for Scottish independence, or, say, the real meaning of the lyrics in The Maid of Aughrim, then that's what I want to talk about. Not the Bible. To have to talk about the Bible on these other threads, or page down, sighing, through the other strange obsessives' maunderings about it, annoys me.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:39 PM

Well I've just read Matthew 19 and Mark 10 (I can work out the context for myself, thank you, pete). There is no mention of marriage having to be between a man and a woman. It's just a bit of banter about divorce. Is that supposed to be your evidence that Jesus spoke against gay marriage, pete, or have you got a special edition that no-one else gets to see?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:25 PM

I see that Thompson appears to have demonstrated that Keith was either ignorant or mendacious.

Why should we be nice to people like that?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Will Fly
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:23 PM

Joe - I think your words are very reasonable.

I don't get involved in debates about religion here because, having read through many Mudcat threads in which religion is discussed, it seems that there never has been, and never will be, any change of opinion on either of the pro- or anti- religion factions. No chance of any constructive debate or give and take, as far as I can see. So it nearly always descends into insult, anger and mud-slinging.

There used to be a tradition in the British Army that "politics, religion and the memsahibs" were not suitable topics for discussion in the Officers' Mess - and you can see why, with the discord these topics (at least politics and religion) usually sow.

I'm a case in point. I became a convinced atheist when I was about 13 or 14 - and I remain the same 55 years later. I genuinely believe religion to be a waste of space but (apart from this one statement), I'm certainly not going to debate that here on Mudcat. It would go nowhere, so I don't bother - and I'm damned sure that the religious-minded people here are just as adamant as me. So what point is there in any debate?

My perhaps simplistic advice would be: if you can't debate the topic in a civilised manner, don't bother raising it in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:20 PM

well joe, I can see that it is possible to say that when Jesus defines marriage in matt 19, mark 10 [ note to steve, the context is marriage and divorce ] you could infer that as he did not mention homosexuality he might have approved of it. however , homosexual acts were condemned in the OT , and I should have thought that much was understood by his audience.[ maybe your professional training told you different ?] . it does seem a bit of an understatement to say the bible says little on the subject, as it is mentioned a number of times, and quite definitely in romans 1.    a single mention might be perhaps a reason for indefiniteness, but it is far from that. I should add, that I do not think that it is the only, or the worst sin, but it is still according to the bible, sinful behaviour, and like other sins is forgivable. btw, joe, I was not expecting you to agree with my plain, grammatical understanding of the bible, as I know you have more liberal interpretations, but I hoped you might at least acknowledge that a plain reading of the text presents marriage as man and woman. but your answer was at least constructive, largely, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:57 PM

Good news, Joe O:
maybe a more "civil union of minds and posts" will result-outside an occasional dust up?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:44 PM

Well, I think the mods have backed off a bit. Only the nastiest messages have been deleted in this thread - a total of four or five.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:28 PM

Just an idea Joe O.

The mods clearly made their point and maybe, "edgy folks" got the message. Couldn't it be time to ease up (though remaing vigilant) -as the fight message may have resonated and the combat subsided. If it were, would the mods get the message and intervene in an appropriate manner. Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:43 PM

Thompson, I was a little surprised that you wanted any reference to the Bible suppressed. It exists, it is a document that has been part of history and tradition for a long time, and it's something that people try to use to support their views without ever consulting it. So-called "bible-believing" Christians often tell how the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's important for them to be confronted with the fact that the Bible does not make much reference to homosexuality at all.

I have a degree in Theology and I work in the Catholic Church, but yet I am one of many Catholics who support the right of gays to marry. I've been here at Mudcat since three months after it opened in 1996, and people here can tell you that I don't preach my religion at Mudcat. But when Pete say the Bible says thus-and-such and even implies that I can back him up, I would certainly think it proper to post information from the Bible to refute that. To my mind, homosexuality was not an issue among Jews and Christians at the time the Bible was written. The Bible makes some minor references to homosexuality, but it really doesn't discuss the matter with any level of thoroughness. Using the Bible to condemn homosexuality, requires a high level of conjecture about what the Bible writers meant to say. And same thing with Jesus giving a "definition of marriage" - he just plain didn't, but "bible-believing" Christians like to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the Bible to support their pre-conceived notions (which, of course, they deny that they do).

You seem to be an open-minded person, so I was surprised that you woud want discussion of the Bible to be pigeonholed somewhere out of public view on Mudcat. The Bible is a document of great historical significance, even for people who don't profess religious faith. It is a chronicle of two ancient groups in the context of the beliefs that were at the center of their lives. It is the best-preserved, most-used, and most widely available ancient document in existence. Even if you don't use it as a basis for your belief system, it can help you understand the many people who do.

Conservative Christians, particularly fundamentalist American evangelical Christians, take a particular view of the Bible that I think is invalid. Their rigid, strangely literal, legalistic use of the Bible to support their preconceived notions, gives Christianity and the Bible a bad name. I don't think the Bible writers intended the strange, judgmental interpretation that these fundamentalists have come up with, an interpretation that ignores the cultural, historical, and literary context in which the Bible was written. Heck, most of them can't see the creation story and the story of Jonah and the fish (not whale) as literary devices.

I don't think these pages are a proper platform for preaching, but the purpose of our BS section is for factual, civil discussion of all issues other than music. There are some Mudcatters who think we should delete posts that are distasteful to them, particularly conservative opinions - but if we didn't allow dissenting opinions, what would we have to discuss? The one thing we can't allow, is combat. When the combat gets too heated, discussion is impossible, and then we have to shut things down.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:35 PM

And, odf course, while we are "at it, we need to explore the concept of "uncivil partnerships" (not ruling out that quite a few marriages wind up being "uncivil").


uncivil partnerships 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:21 PM

Nice letter from a Dublin woman in the Irish Times regarding the claim that a yes vote wouls undermine the the traditional cooncept of marriage:
"I looked out of the window and I swear I saw a shoal ofred herrings swimming out to sea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:06 PM

One surprising difference between civil partnership and marriage (in Scotland): adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership.

I have seen the standard legal text on dissolution of civil partnerships in Scotland. I can read some legalese, but not that. You would need to be an experienced lawyer to make any sense of it.

In some ways civil partnership is an institution closer to what a Catholic traditionalist would want than modern marriage is. Perhaps the old-guard of the Church in Ireland might consider going for it and leaving marriage for the gays.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:04 PM

Marriage law in Ireland may be different from where Keith lives. Lawyers went through the provisions for marriage and civil partnership in Ireland and found 160 differences

It was very badly drafted then.
It would have been much easier to just correct that.
You would not have needed a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:46 PM

Dictionaries provide the current usage of words.
My only point about the dictionaries is that they are changing the definition.
The changed definition of marriage is what we have achieved.

This "civil partnership is the same so why give them a word?"

This civil partnership is the same so why not give them a word?
We agree Musket.
And why not the other currently excluded groups?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:28 PM

""Dictionaries are descriptors in an arbitrary manner, they are not definitive in law and they certainly do not take precedence over peoples' own experience. ""

Additionally, there are a variety of dictionaries found online, with variations in quality, purpose and reliability. The Urban dictonary is one such example.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:18 PM

This "civil partnership is the same so why give them a word?" is interesting. In The USA a couple of hundred years ago, blacks jumped over the broomstick. It was recognised in the same way a church wedding was for whites.

Instead of saying what is good enough for "them" just remember there is no "them." Just us. Adults in love and wishing to make a commitment that is recognised in law in terms of sharing assets and recognised by those in the marriage as a wonderful day with what is hoped at the time as a lifetime afterwards. We call it marriage by the way.

Dictionaries eh? Read Dr Johnson's? Bang on about the Scots and animals.....

Dictionaries are descriptors in an arbitrary manner, they are not definitive in law and they certainly do not take precedence over peoples' own experience. If someone calls their contract a marriage and that is recognised in law, it is incumbent upon the dictionary to catch up, not the other way around. The one quoted above has a totally superfluous second section that needs editing out. It possibly says more about the compiling editors than it does reality.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Fergie
Date: 26 May 15 - 12:56 PM

In Ireland we have a Constitution and no article in it can be changed by legislation, but only through agreement by the majority of the citizens who vote in a referendum.

"Marriage" was included in the constitution and therefore had constitutional protection, but "civil partnership" was enacted through legislation and that clearly means that the two are NOT equal.

This inequality between marriage and civil partnership was the reason that we had a referendum and the outcome is that there is only one institution of marriage and all married people (be they of opposite-sex or same-sex couples) will have equal rights and protection under the constitution and civil law.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 12:30 PM

Marriage law in Ireland may be different from where Keith lives. Lawyers went through the provisions for marriage and civil partnership in Ireland and found 160 differences - things like right to be next-of-kin, inheritance rights, important stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:49 AM

""I do not know.
Church marriage was not up for change anyway.""

Marriage has been a legal government institution for many years. No "church or religious" involvement is required for marriages between a man and and a woman in most countries. For equality purposes, this has merely been extended (by governments) to the institution for all gender mixes in many countries, including Ireland.

What "churches" require for their internal marriage services would be up to them to decide.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: frogprince
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:39 AM

Bigamy and Polygamy probably were outlawed for a combination of at least two reasons: the prevailing mindset of the time that they were by definition sinful, and the realization that bigamy commonly involves deceit, each wife being unaware of the other, and that polygamy commonly involved coercion and subjugation of some of the wives, commonly very young vulnerable women.

If all involved are fully responsible, freely consenting, adults, the validity of legal prohibition is indeed questionable at best.

i

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:34 AM

So, if marriage, civil partnerships (and common law relationsips) are interchangable-why all the fuss from the right wing religious folks,

I do not know.
Church marriage was not up for change anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:29 AM

why in the UK in the 21st Century Bigamy and Polygamy should still be classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment...???

Good question.
Likewise the restrictions against siblings and parent and child.
Whose business is it what they do?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jeri
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:28 AM

The US Supreme Court long ago established that "separate but equal" is not equal. While you may be happy calling your marriage a "civil union", others want the complete thing, the real thing, the WORD.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:24 AM

I'm sure they feel that full marriage rights are preferable.

Full marriage rights are no different to Civil Partnership rights.
In terms of rights, nothing has been gained.

"All changed, changed utterly" is merely the right for gay couples to use the word married.
The meaning of one word has been altered.
That is all.

I know they do feel that is "preferable."
I know two couples who have made the change (my sister in law, our Methodist minister and their partners).

It is surprising how much emotional baggage is involved in obtaining just a word, and one which is going out of fashion generally anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:01 AM

...and in the positive light of this debate on equality of valid legal marriage, I ask again..

why in the UK in the 21st Century
Bigamy and Polygamy
should still be classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment...???

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:55 AM

Do note... some (many?) churches will perform marriages for any couples... gay or straight. When opinion is that divided, even in the religious communities, isn't it obvious that more conservative attitudes are just that... attitudes & opinions, not binding 'truths' upon everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:50 AM

Keith A....

A dictionary editor can print anything he chooses... that doesn't mean he is speaking for the rest of the world.
What are you missing? Go ask partners who are limited to "civil partnership". Then ask people who are legally married why THEY didn't just limit themselves to civil partnership. I'm sure they feel that full marriage rights are preferable. In many places civil partnership does NOT allow full legal rights on inheritance and various other rights.

The ONLY reason to restrict legal marriage to those YOU approve of is to make your own situation seem superior... and to hang on to religious beliefs that are relics of a different age.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:44 AM

So, if marriage, civil partnerships (and common law relationsips) are interchangable-why all the fuss from the right wing religious folks, when a gay person prefers a marriage? Why not just insist that all your "straight" family members enter into civil partnerships in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:29 AM

Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 09:41 AM

I did think that "equal rights" means the same thing as "equality and fair play."

What am I missing?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:37 AM

If you think that "equal rights" means the same thing as "equality and fair play", then I'm afraid we are not on the same page.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:20 AM

marriage
ˈmarɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

marriage
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Financial, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
mar·riage (măr′ĭj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
d. A common-law marriage.
e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married:

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:12 AM

Civil Partnership already provided equal rights.
Only the word "marriage" was missing.

Look at online dictionary definitions of marriage.
They are being changed.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 07:43 AM

That is quite clearly not the issue at all. The issue is about getting equality and fair play for human beings regardless of their gender and sexuality, not redefining a word.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:31 AM

In many countries marriage has legalities that civil partnerships do.

Regardless, while the institution does not matter to some, it clearly does to others from various viewpoints. That is the reason for "all the fuss".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:15 AM

Richard made an interesting point.
Marriage is not the key institution it once was anyway.
Many couples do not bother with it anymore.
It is just a word.

Civil partnership already delivered equality in all the rights that go with marriage.
This whole issue is just about redefining the word marriage really.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:00 AM

Thompson, a thread on gay marriage in Ireland, which involved campaigning by religious interests, is hardly going to go on for long devoid of scriptural references. I wish it were otherwise, but their inclusion is now integral to the discussion. It would be a bit artificial to shift posts mentioning the Bible to other threads. I am trying to avoid gratuitous disrespect to religion on this occasion, you know. I'm just asking a question and I have, after all, done a bit of biblical homework.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:13 AM

Steve, I'd be happier if there were a "Bible" thread, and any time the Bible were invoked in any thread the moderator jumped in and moved that post to the "Bible" thread, and left a marker message "Bible message moved to Bible thread". Then the Bible fanatics could all fight with each other on the same thread, instead of dragging their obsession into other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:08 AM

"Back to the Bible" - well, there is a fair bit of name-calling, etc., around here at times, but, if we're having a discussion, and someone makes an assertion that appears to need challenging, what is one to do? I didn't shout at pete (this time); I merely asked him to support his statement Jesus clearly defined marriage as one man and one women [sic]. It's hardly surprising that the Bible gets invoked in this topic, and your kneejerk is unwarranted.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:49 AM

The whole thrust of the 'No' campaign was based on the line peddled by the church and it was the "effect the changes would have on the traditional family" which started many of the arguments here in Clare, which, I admit, tends to be very 'traditional' in its views.
Whichever is right, I don't think there can e any argument of the direct effect on the church that the result had - as my mate Fergie said "All changed, changed utterly."
Never thought I'd live to see the day - just wish my old man (whose life was ruined by the combined efforts of the church and the State) was around to appreciate the feeling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:48 AM

This piece by Miriam Lord gives an idea of one approach that was taken. (If the link hits a paywall, try searching Google News for "Miriam Lord" and "Averil" - this will only work for the next couple of days (from May 26, 2015), due to The Irish Times' paywall policy.)
In her piece, Miriam Lord, the Times' lemony eye on politics, describes the Fianna Fail politician Averil Power trying to get local Fianna Fail people to canvass for the referendum their party officially backed, while also canvassing for their local candidate in a by-election. She was laughed out of it. She has now left Fianna Fail.
"The lads were highly amused," she writes. "Sure they couldn't be doing that. There's a general election coming up, and you wouldn't want to be upsetting anyone on the doorsteps by talking about the gays, and the way they might look at you."
("The way they might look at you" is a reference to this ad.)
Fianna Fail is the party founded by Eamon de Valera, which has always positioned itself as espousing the ideals of 1916, such as decent homes, respect for the old, good Catholic families, etc; rather ignoring the fact that some of the 1916 leaders and fighters had ideals that included equality and didn't include religion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:27 AM

I don't know, Jim - I just read a few papers, mostly online, don't listen to Irish radio much, but watch the TV news the odd time. Keep an eye on social media. But normally people would be talking about what bishops said, as they would about what politicians and 'celebs' said. I didn't see or hear any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:36 AM

Sorry - didn't give the link
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/same-sex-marriage-vote-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-church-1.2225680
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:34 AM

"The Catholic bishops said little during most of the campaign."
Irish Times today
"What was " particularly sad was to see the bishops in total opposition to a mass movement of the younger generation"
This is the dull text of what the article says - sums up the situation the Church has got itself into perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:30 AM

Mm. Some of the post is there but a paragraph in the middle has disappeared.

Getting clever these Jesus filters...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Musket not bonking
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:25 AM

I look at it this way. We have less need for superstition these days. The answers we naturally crave to describe the reality we experience are slowly but surely being provided through scientific research, so ascribing it to a man made deity is rather insulting to those who strive to give us understanding.

The "jam tomorrow" and be poor here so you can be rich in the next life always was seen as a tool of those in charge and what with day time television and YouTube pictures of kittens being cute, we don't need the mind control to keep us happy either. Soap operas have replaced sermons.

Now that isn't good news for the few percent who get a lot out of their faith but just think on. It's the petes of this world who are making the concept of religion irrelevant to normal people. The Irish rejection of bigotry last week had an interesting angle. Priests telling people how to vote and their congregations making it clear that tradition and ceremony, even comfort at vulnerable times is not the same as adherence, a rather old fashioned value from the days of poor education and priests being seen as leaders of society rather than pariahs, as many in Ireland see them after the sexual abuse and influence that led to a woman dying because the bishop leant on the health services to prevent a life saving abortion.

The rise of abusing Islam to force through more temporal aims is perhaps the largest factor in people questioning what religion can offer. Christian leaders speaking of a holy war don't exactly help matters with their inflammatory rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:05 AM

Aaaaaand we're back to the Bible.

Mudcat at the moment is like one of those parties you go to where every room you enter, no matter what the conversation, you keep encountering the same couple of people wanting to buttonhole you to tell you about the time they broke their leg or how their husband left them.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 May 15 - 09:29 PM

Yep, you got it, Steve. S-T-R-E-T-C-H-E-D is the word. I wish all those people who worry about such things, would worry that much about caring for those who are "hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison."

If they would actually live the gospel they think they preach, maybe Christians would build the reputation they think they deserve.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:47 PM

Somewhat related to this subject... UK laws on Bigamy and Polygamy ???

Not that either me or the mrs are looking to expand our 'family' for the moment..

but why in the 21st century, should this still be a matter to concern the police and prison service..??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:27 PM

My little bit of biblical research this evening (an occasional pastime of mine, believe it or not) has failed to reveal that Jesus ever defined marriage as having to be between a man and a woman. I did find several references on websites to people taking bits of biblical quotes and attempting to interpret them in, shall we charitably say, a very stretched manner. Perhaps I've missed something here. I would expect a bible literalist such as pete to be able to provide a clear reference from scripture which nails his assertion. Or shall I not hold my breath?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:52 PM

I dunno, Pete. I've studied and taught the Bible all my life, in a variety of languages. Don't think I've ever seen a "definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman, until the people afraid of gay marriage forced such legislation through legislative bodies in the U.S. in recent years.

It's clear that Jesus spoke of men and women getting married, and he apparently considered that to be the usual situation. The issue of gay marriage was not being discussed at his time, so he had no reason to have "clearly defined marriage as one man and one women (sic) in gospel texts." In Matthew 19:5, Jesus says, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' He simply states the usual situation. He does not deny other possibilities - because the question was not an issue at the time. I suppose that one could logically conclude that man-woman marriage was the understanding Jesus had of marriage at the time, but it's clear he wasn't dictating the definition of marriage.

As for myself, I am very happily married to a woman. If my next-door neighbor marries somebody of the same sex, I do not see how that threatens my marriage or changes its definition in any way. The courts recently declared same-sex marriage legal here in California, and that change has not affected my marriage in any way whatsoever.

Legislation allowing gay marriage affects only gay people. Why should anybody else be concerned about it? No matter what the law says, Pete and I can continue to be as "biblically Christian" as we think we ought to be (although our understandings of what is "biblically Christian" are vastly different). To my mind, though, the Bible made very few mentions of homosexuality at all, so it certainly must not have been a very important issue to the bible writers. Christians would be better off focusing on Matthew 25. In that passage, Jesus says we all are obliged to care for those who are "hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison." He repeats that list four times, something that does not happen in any other passage in the Bible - so it seems to me that service to those in need is what Jesus considered to be of utmost importance. Jesus seemed to have a serious disdain for hypocrites, but he didn't say anything at all about homosexuals. Paul had a few words about homosexuality, but just in passing. And I've always thought that Paul had some "issues," despite his good intentions.

Thompson makes a very good point above. Within the Catholic Church, the strongest opposition to gay marriage (and to abortion) comes from organizations of wealthy, conservative Catholic men who often have ties to Opus Dei. In this media age, a very small group can make a lot of noise and cause a lot of trouble. I wonder how large the Iona Institute might be. I find it highly offensive that the news media tend to anoint such organizations as spokespersons for the Catholic Church, instead of going to official organizations. American media often like to consult a similar extremist organization, the Catholic League. I work with a nonprofit funded primarily by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), and we are under direct and relentless attack from the Lepanto Institute, an organization trying to destroy Catholic charities like CCHD and Catholic Relief Services - we suspect that the Lepanto Institute may be just one man, but he's very good at running Websites and using smear tactics.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:33 PM

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Kinky Friedman

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:28 PM

I don't really approve of marriage. All that is necessary is for people to behave decently, and recognise and live up to their responsibilities. Church and state intervention are largely unhelpful.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:48 PM

Gandalf never said anything against same sex marriage, so that's good enough for me.

The Church of England has a number of vicars who are gay and either are married or have stated their intentions regardless of the wishes of their employer. As they are professional Christians, pete is obviously out of his depth.

Why are you calling people who believe everyone is equal bigots pete? Do you understand what the word means? Even the authors of the bible had their fictitious hero Jesus believe everyone is equal, not to judge others and other nice nonsense for evil old men to disregard when it suits them.

By the way, I understand Mudcat to be a place where reality is discussed. What is this biblical truth? Your delusion is rather embarrassing for real Christians. To bring fantasy into reasoning to hate people and wish to deny them the same rights as you is about as evil, nasty and immoral as you can get.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:46 PM

Last guest was Ed T on a new cell phone- sorry about the merged words. Email got in there unintentionaly somehow?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:43 PM

So Pete, your claim is your emailskewed interpretation of the Christian Bible is infallible.Even the Pope gave up on that claim.

I just see things differently than you do when it comes to that interptetation- a difference from yours shared by millions of global Christians.

Why so smug and insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:56 PM

Please give me chapter and verse apropos of Jesus's defining of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:49 PM

Well ed, if you think my Christian faith is unbiblical, and you count yourself as being a Christian who thinks it is, I invite you to present your case. If you are not a Christian, then perhaps you may wish to leave that to someone else who is Christian to put their case as to how I am unfaithful in what I believe the bible says. And that joe, is my bottom line. Jesus clearly defined marriage as one man and one women in gospel texts I am sure you are familiar with. Of secondary importance is the pressure that bible believing Christians are already being put under to conform in their work/business , or leave that employment. Of course the anti Christian bigots here would be only to happy to see the dismissal of those they deem bigots for their adherence to what they consider biblical truth.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:03 PM

Further, here's an article that gives a sense of exactly how Ireland has felt since Saturday afternoon when the votes were totalled.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 May 15 - 04:57 PM

The No side in the referendum were headed by the Iona Institute, a rigidly right-wing, anti-liberal Catholic body with links to Opus Dei, Legatus and American ultra-Catholic groups.

The Catholic bishops said little during most of the campaign. In its last week, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said that he was going to be a "reluctant no". A pastoral letter went out from the bishops to be read in the churches on the Sunday before the vote; it was received with less than radiant enthusiasm by many priests; one was described as having told his parishioners that there was a letter at the back of the church from the bishop, and they were welcome to pick it up or read it as they went out, but he was voting Yes.

It must be remembered that priests and nuns have a higher proportion of gay people in their ranks than most professions, since these are among the few good secure jobs you can have in which nobody's going to ask questions if you're not married. While this doesn't mean they'll have an attitude to gay marriage as such, it is likely to sway them towards a decision that will definitely normalise gay people and give them a new place in society.

It must also be remembered that there has been an epidemic of male suicides in Ireland. While very many of these are what is described as "financials", caused by the deep insecurity of negative equity, the crash of many businesses and the lack of good and secure work as the economy tanked with the help of the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, many others - especially in the case of double suicides of young men - are understood to have been gay men killing themselves rather than live with the shame and fear. Legislating for equality of marriage means that men and women will be able to come out into the light at last, and be normal respectable people like everyone else.

The precursor of this has been the sensational in impact yet quiet and graceful coming out of public figures, including the young Minister for Health, Leo Varadkar, and the respected broadcaster Una Mullally. The latter had mentioned that she was diagnosed with cancer recently; an anonymous letter arrived to her suggesting that her cancer was the "will of God" because she was gay…

So it's not as simple as the Catholic Church trying to force people to vote against this.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 02:53 PM

Musket,
but to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent health statistics

If I have it was not deliberate and I am sorry for it.
Please identify the mistake.
All I have done is to cut and paste from the annual government report with a link provided .
How could that possibly lead to a misinterpretation?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 02:36 PM

Sorry interrupted
One of the most common conclusions drawn from the vote has been that it had drawn a line under church authority in Ireland (hence the title of this thread, I should think)
This has even been the reponse of the Church here when a leading churchman stated that the Catholic Chrch needs ro take a "reality check".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 02:01 PM

"A third of the Irish who voted aren't necessarily under the influence of the Catholic Church"
It's a pretty safe bet that the majority are and the most vociferous opposition has come from churchmen and their acolytes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:57 PM

Musket - yeah.. I'm from Scrumpyshire and the mrs is Welsh...

..so daren't imagine what our kids could have ended up looking like
if we hadn't opted to stay childless...😬


Marriage should be freely for whoever* and however
- and bollocks to the control freaks and their traditional norms......


[* Note to pedantic moralists.. of course I draw the line at kiddies and siblings...]

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:40 PM

Countries where homosexuality is illegal:

Africa

1 Algeria
2 Angola
3 Botswana
4 Burundi
5 Cameroon
6 Comoros
7 Egypt
8 Eritrea
9 Ethiopia
10 Gambia
11 Ghana
12 Guinea
13 Kenya
14 Liberia
15 Libya
16 Malawi (enforcement of law suspended)
17 Mauritania
18 Mauritius
19 Morocco
20 Namibia
21 Nigeria
22 Senegal
23 Seychelles
24 Sierra Leone
25 Somalia
26 South Sudan
27 Sudan
28 Swaziland
29 Tanzania
30 Togo
31 Tunisia
32 Uganda
33 Zambia
34 Zimbabwe

Asia, including the Middle East

35 Afghanistan
36 Bangladesh
37 Bhutan
38 Brunei
39 Daesh (or ISIS / ISIL)
40 India
41 Iran
42 Iraq
43 Kuwait
44 Lebanon (law ruled invalid in one court)
45 Malaysia
46 Maldives
47 Myanmar
48 Oman
49 Pakistan
50 Palestine/Gaza Strip
51 Qatar
52 Saudi Arabia
53 Singapore
54 Sri Lanka
55 Syria
56 Turkmenistan
57 United Arab Emirates
58 Uzbekistan
59 Yemen

Americas

60 Antigua & Barbuda
61 Barbados
62 Belize
63 Dominica (But see "Dominica leader: No enforcement of anti-gay law" )
64 Grenada
65 Guyana
66 Jamaica
67 St Kitts & Nevis
68 St Lucia
69 St Vincent & the Grenadines
70 Trinidad & Tobago

Oceania

71 Cook Islands
72 Indonesia (Aceh Province and South Sumatra)
73 Kirbati
74 Nauru
75 Papua New Guinea
76 Samoa
77 Solomon Islands
78 Tonga
79 Tuvalu

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:35 PM

Here PFR. I tend to be careful when in The West Country. I doubt I'd have met up with you in a swingers sauna. I don't want to catch Scrapie! 🐑

Now, come to think about it.. Unlike my good friend Musket, I would normally be more careful than to visit a folk club with Keith in it. I have my street cred to think about.

Mind you.. I do know Backwoodsman in the real world, so just in case anyone's paranoia extends to thinking all the others on here are computer generated, he exists. (And lots of ofhers above the line too. I reckon only BWM and I pop down here to view the exhibits. An indication of the lack of distraction in parts of Lincolnshire and real Lincolnshire.)

Thompson. Your comment that people have the right to think civil partnership is enough may be valid, but their right to inflict it in a vote? The rear four rows of seats on buses are good enough for blacks too... A bit like Keith A of Hertford and Akenaton equating gay men with disease. They can say it is their opinion, but to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent health statistics to convince others to their way of thinking isn't just appalling, it is where they cross the line, both morally and indeed legally.

They can have repugnant views. They are welcome to them. They can't commit incitement to hatred though where Mudcat is published, (Hertford and Strachur respectively.)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:34 PM

Countries where same sex marriage is legal:

The Netherlands (2000)

Belgium (2003)

Canada (2005)

Spain (2005)

South Africa (2006)

Norway (2009)

Sweden (2009)

Argentina (2010)

Iceland (2010)

Portugal (2010)

Denmark (2012)

Brazil (2013)

England and Wales (2013)

France (2013)

New Zealand (2013)

Uruguay (2013)

Luxembourg (2014)

Scotland (2014)

Finland: (signed 2015, effective 2017)

Ireland (2015)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:20 PM

A third of the Irish who voted aren't necessarily under the influence of the Catholic Church (or of the Protestant fundamentalist churches which were campaigning against the referendum and were said to have 300,000 people signed up to vote No).

More likely they were worried about the implications - they may have been unclear about the question of surrogacy, which is not legally available for heterosexuals or homosexuals in Ireland; or they may have wished to maintain the traditional meaning of marriage in Ireland and felt that the civil partnership already available to gay people in Ireland was enough.

I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean they're not perfectly entitled to their beliefs and to vote according to them.

The legislation should be through by autumn, and the first weddings are expected by Christmas. I'm hoping that this will very much normalise the position of gay people in Ireland.

As for Poland, the number of Polish emigrants in Ireland is such that Polish is now the second most commonly spoken language here; the landslide vote here may well resound in Poland and change attitudes there.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:16 PM

ROTFLMAO! 😄😄

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:09 PM

I think it would be quite hilarious if some viciously feuding mudcatters
discovered they'd 'met' at a swinger's sauna party, or out dogging...

"Blimey.. who'd have realised that was him.. he seemed such a nice chap while he was shagging my missus..???"😳

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:07 PM

Amazing..

Utterly amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 May 15 - 11:45 AM

Meanwhile, here is a country with a hell of a long way to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Poland

though a majority do support the rights of same-sex partners in financial matters - inheritance, tax and pensions. But the Church won't permit that much either.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 11:12 AM

"I would not care if we had met or not, but we haven't so why lie?"
Pleaae stop this - yo're heading for getting this thread deleted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 10:39 AM

I post notices about the Great Eastern in the permathread.
That is all the knowledge you have.
You even referred to Brunel's ship when pretending to know the place.
If you had ever visited you would know it was a railway pub named after the GER.

I would not care if we had met or not, but we haven't so why lie?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 10:30 AM

I haven't met you. But the Musket posting above has. If you recall he said it was at your local folk club once. I think it was when he was doing locum work but I'm sure he'll remind yourself again.

I have to say I do find it strange that you insist he never went to your local club when he only calls himself Musket, so only a few on here know the Nick himself. I could never say I have never met someone only that I don't recall.

But why be honest when you are defending the indefensible? Your illogical comments just fit in with the Keith many on here are laughing at.

I'd accept that he is far more tolerant than me if I were you. If someone introduced you to me, I'd recall your enthusiasm for hatred and bigotry, your childish smearing of others and unfortunate outlook on life and just turn round and walk out, wiping my feet on the way out.

You cant debate. You spend time trying to destroy the views of others whilst accusing them of not accepting your racist homophobia.

You are mere rubbish. I am better than that so no real chance of us meeting. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 May 15 - 10:06 AM

It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks. It does matter what 62% of the Irish voters thought. Gay marriage is legal. That's it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 10:06 AM

Musket, we have never met.
Why claim it?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 15 - 09:53 AM

Let me set one thing very straight.... marriage was NOT 'defined' by anyone in years past. It was merely a commonly accepted 'norm'. Various institutions based on religion assumed that their moralistic leanings should be applied to everyone.... thus, in the days when almost everyone was a member of, or controlled by, some aspect of an established religion, no one even bothered to try to get married except M-F couples. It really didn't NEED to be 'defined', because sexuality itself was so proscribed that marriage was just assumed, even by homosexuals, to be limited to M-F.
   It was a tradition, not a law or definition, though some laws no doubt implied that M-M or F-F could not marry. Slavery was an accepted norm at one time also, as were other behaviors that we now find abhorrent. Slavery was a lot easier to see an abhorrent, as the evil effects were obvious and affected the subservient group(s) and society as a whole in bad ways...... marriage of two people of the same sex does not. Remember... there are some in society who could easily accept the return of slavery as a norm.

Imagine meeting someone you know is gay, but with whom you have a cordial relationship...perhaps at work. He is a nice guy, and you chat about this & that. Now imagine he mentions that he and his partner just got 'married'. What changed? His new status does not affect you in the least. His being married does not affect YOUR marriage... and the only real effect on society is that there is less bureaucratic nonsense about property, inheritance, power of attorney, contracts....etc.

Once more.... the right to marry is now...in most countries... a civil contract regulated by law in order to keep certain civil affairs orderly. Some people... even many people... also **LIKE** to attach a religious element to it and 'marry' in a religious ceremony, but the civil license is the binding one. People can, and often do, get married in a purely civil ceremony. Some churches find this to be 'disturbing', because it limits the authority that churches once held over almost every aspect of life.... but the carryover 'tradition' of limiting marriage to M-F has still clouded the civil ceremony...until recently.
   People are naturally startled to see such cracks in a 'tradition', but once they see that the only problem with the new order is within their own heads, it will soon just be the norm that 'marriage' just means 'joining of people who love each other'. Those who wish to believe that a God is involved in their own case may keep believing that- it doesn't affect ME!

The whole objection to gay marriage is a psychological leaning defended by straight people using convoluted linguistic jargon designed to make what THEY do seem the norm. In a sense, it will remain the norm, as M-F will no doubt always be the majority- genetics just works like that.

It will obviously take awhile for some cultures to follow Ireland's lead, but Ireland is a breath of fresh air in a world with so much confusion and hate.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 May 15 - 09:47 AM

Just an observation:

Very often, at first, these posts, begin with quite a few folks, with broad perspectives to share. They often end with a few discussing one or two topics, with oft' repeated perspectives.

It kinda reminds me of fencing. No, not the dueling variety-but, the containment type found down on the farm.

I grew up on a farm and we had a large herd of cattle. It was one of my jobs to keep the fences intact, to keep the cattle contained inside. Unfortunately, when a hole in the fence appeared, it was also my job to chase and herd the cattle back inside and fix the hole.

When we reduced our herd, gradually down to a few, and then one, I excitedly predicatedmy job would be earlier-fewer animals, fewer animals would be easier to contain. I was wrong, for some social reason my job of containement was just as hard, if not harder, with more holes in the fence and escapes to deal with.

My observation here is the job of the mods, in containing the few, and fixing the holes may be more difficult as the number of posters decrease to a few? But, it is just an observation, not a fixed belief, and it is open for discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 09:16 AM

No Keith. If you hold a bigoted view you are a bigot. Silly. If you oppose the rights of others then you are a bigot. If your church or mosque teaches you to be a bigot then you either hold bigoted views or you aren't a sheep after all.

I notice that some of the comments by the Scotland Musket have been deleted yet many hatred inspired comments remain. I use Mudcat for the music bits really and when talking to people in the folk world mention the music resource but warn them that if they want to see true nasty people still walking this earth, look at the BS section, but be grateful the Keith's and Akenatons of this world don't have the courage of their conviction to spout off in such awful ways when you meet them. (No idea about Akenaton but I have met Keith and he definitely doesn't appear the swivel eyed bigot he comes over as on these threads. To be fair, it was a quick intro and apart from him singing a bit flat, I didn't take too much notice of him the rest of the night. No criticism there by the way. I can't sing either, although Musket Original is a cracking singer.)

Anyway. Everybody is allowed the same rights as everybody else in yet another country. Bigots and their apologists ("I support gay marriage but accept others don't," in case you wondered what the apologists are, yes, looking at you Keith) are marginalised and bigotry dies a shameful death. Result.

I must be a bigot because I am proud of my father's generation who destroyed Hitler and his "different views". zzzz

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:59 AM

"Over a third of the population of Ireland are bigots then Steve?"
No they are not - over one third of the population are still under the influence of the Christian Church, which, as with the pregnancy termination affair, pulled out all the stops to prevent the constitution from being chaged - brainwashing by fundamentalist mystics.
Ten years ago, this magnificent result would ot have been possible and twenty years ago it would never have even taken place.
In the case of the termination vote, politicians were threatened with excommunication if they voted for the bill, despite its wishy-washy limitations.
This was their attitude then - it was preferable that women should die rather than go against the church's rulings.
I seem to remember that the argument then that the church had no say in Government policy - this result has been heralded as an end to the bad old days.
Incidentally - Ireland has been congratulated by the United Nations for its stance on Gay Marriage - what next - Nobel Peace Prize!!
Nice letter in the Irish Times this morning saying the writer felt as they must have felt when the Berlin Wall fell
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:44 AM

If you hold a different view you are a bigot.
If you express a different view, or defend the right to hold one, you are a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:38 AM

It's just Keith, Peter. He's trolling in another thread as well. Your advice is timely.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:35 AM

Don't rise to it Steve. Just let them trolling along. The last few posts don't seem to do anything but trying to bait you.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:19 AM

Over a third of the population of Ireland are bigots then Steve?
And most Muslims too?
You are a very intolerant person.
Intolerant of anyone whose view of marriage differs from yours.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:57 AM

Try to be more tolerant? Have you tried saying those words to your fellow-traveller Akenaton? I love the idea of gay marriage, gay non-marriage, mixed-sex marriage, mixed-sex non-marriage, civil partnerships, whatever anyone wants. Marriage by vicars, priests, imams, rabbis, registrars, Caribbean beach bums, Elvis, Ronald MacDonald. It all works for me. And none of it is any of my business unless I get invited. I couldn't be more tolerant, nay, celebratory, of all of it if I tried. What you are really asking me to do is to be tolerant of intolerance. Intolerance which, when loudly expressed, as it often is, strays into bigotry. People who would like laws against it. People who think they should have a say in other people's perfectly decent and honourable private lives, even though it doesn't affect them one jot. Self-righteous people who invoke their religion in the cause of opposing not only gay marriage but homosexuality itself. Sorry, Keith. I am unable to comply with your request on this occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:41 AM

Steve,
. I do not agree with your defence of traditional marriage

I do not defend it.
I only defend the right of any person to defend it.

The man/woman concept has been fundamental forever only in your head.

My head has not existed forever.
The origins of marriage are lost in prehistory, but it has always been for man and woman.

And we can't change a thing like bringing in gay marriage gradually any more than we can switch to driving on the right gradually.

Obviously not, but public opinion does only switch gradually.
It is wrong to expect everyone to change on the same day, and to vilify anyone who changed later than you.

Try to be more tolerant.
More liberal Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:18 AM

Canada has had legal same sex marriages for 10 years, with little, if any, negative impacts on its society-but more choices, acceptance and equality. However, like with others, not all gay folks choose to marry. Common law relationships are increasing on all fronts. Couples who remarried (many with children) have also increased, with the increased divorce rates. The definition of family has changed, as has the once negative stigmas that were once associated with non-traditional relationships and families. I do not see Canadian society any worse off for these changes, but reduced stigmas sure has made it easier for members of these families to play an open and active role in society with limited discrimination.



Canada's bonding stats

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:35 AM

STILL MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:34 AM

Not one of those issues you raise about traditional marriage are addressed by extending it to include SS couples.

That is a complete red herring. My post was a response to the specious claim that TRADITIONAL marriage has served us well, etc. It hasn't. If you want to make points about the effectiveness of other arrangements, fine. All I would say in that context about gay marriage is that the campaigns to bring it in have largely been predicated on achieving greater equality. I should think that would make for a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:30 AM

AND MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:44 AM

" traditional marriage has served society very well for many hundreds of years."
MORE STATISTICS TO IGNORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:35 AM

You are asking a person who did not make that remark. That's a very odd way of seeking clarification. I do not agree with your defence of traditional marriage and I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Read Peter's link. The man/woman concept has been fundamental forever only in your head. And we can't change a thing like bringing in gay marriage gradually any more than we can switch to driving on the right gradually.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:24 AM

Steve, some gay women oppose SS marriage for those reasons.
Not one of those issues you raise about traditional marriage are addressed by extending it to include SS couples.

Traditional marriage has been tinkered with before.
Different cultures have chosen some age restrictions, but the man to woman concept has been absolutely fundamental for ever.

Such a fundamental change is usually a generational thing, yet our generation has seen it come to pass in much less than a life time.
Just a few years.

Like you I welcome it, but I also respect the fact that many will take a little longer to come to terms with it.

Musket said that he wanted Ake to "be no more" because of it.
You generously assumed he meant no more on Mudcat, not dead.
Should over a third of the population of Ireland "be no more" because of their views?
Is that not a really bigoted view?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:18 AM

Thank you for educating me on the Irish setup, Thompson. My views on referendums are just that, my views. We could, of course, spend hours moaning about democracy... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:12 AM

Traditional marriage has actually served women very badly. Read the article linked to by Peter Laban. Traditional marriage has kept women subservient to their husbands for centuries and much of that quasi-enslavement has been enshrined in law, variously in different countries. Add to that the very high failure rate of marriages, the frequency of domestic abuse, often rampant infidelity and the fact that millions of couples now simply live together (something, oddly, that you are silent on, despite your love for traditional marriage, which calls sharply into question your clear obsession with gay marriage, no?), and traditional marriage is beginning to look, well, a little anaemic to say the least. A bit rocky, eh? I'd say that traditional marriage has served MEN very well...

I agree with most of what Joe Offer says in his last two posts. But I would add my opinion that, if someone utters what I regard to be illiberal and backward views on sexuality, as exemplified by Akenaton and pete's posts, then my right to be pretty vehement (and sod tactics) in response is just as "sacred", to use Joe's terminology. There is a pretty well-justified perception here that they are being protected whilst right-minded, if tactically-deficient, people are being silenced. That's the problem. And I know only too well that you don't have to name-call to get your posts or threads deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:08 AM

Let me get back to: who's next?

Allowing same-sex marriage is part of the platform of Syriza in Greece. They currently have too many other problems to deal with for that to be an immediate priority, but the fact that Greeks voted them in says something.

Croatia is a mess. Know-nothing Catholic populists (ultimately the result of manipulation by Pope John Paul Ringo) got a ban on same-sex marriage through a referendum, against the opposition of all major political parties. Regardless, the government has legitimized same-sex civil partnerships. The fact that the current Pope isn't such a neo-mediaeval fascist shitbag may make a difference.

Most of Orthodox Eastern Europe has banned same-sex marriage constitutionally. The Orthodox church hasn't been as badly affected by child abuse scandals as the Roman one, but most likely that's just because their coverups are still working. Once they get found out things may change.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 25 May 15 - 04:29 AM

Thanks Joe, well said, but I would remind you that it is not simply a personal choice....something that I couldn't possibly object to.... but involves legislation to redefine a centuries old institution.

Being "old" doesn't necessarily make something "good" but traditional marriage has served society very well for many hundreds of years.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 04:19 AM

"Pete and ake: I, for one, think that you have a right to question all aspects of sexuality"
Every individual has a right to discuss whatever they choose, though the somewhat prurient obsession some people have with discussing other's sex lives convinces me that far too many people have problems with their own.
The constant condemnation of the sexual behavior of others - The Mrs Whitehouse syndrome (probably doesn't mean too much to those not of these shores) seems to be a substitute for something severely lacking in their own sad lives -they really need to get lives of their own.
Having said that, the Church seems, at long last, to have been booted out of our bedrooms - not before time.
Surely they have done enough damage down the centuries?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 25 May 15 - 01:10 AM

Steve Shaw, the law in Ireland is based on the Constitution. No government and no politician and no court has a right to change a law that is set into the Constitution or based on the Constitution. It can only legally be changed by a vote of the people.
The courts can interpret the Constitution, but when something is clearly stated in the Constitution, and is clearly wrong, it must legally be put to the people.
Sorry if you don't like it; that's the way democracy works in Ireland.
Democracy is different in different places. In ancient Athens, after all, only male property-owners had the right to vote. The enormous population of slaves (equivalent in economic and social status to most people who post on Mudcat) had no say, nor had any woman.
The terms 'democracy' and 'democrat' were commonly used as a form of abuse, like, say, 'communist' now, in the 18th century, when American's wild-eyed radicalism horrified civilised Europeans.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:06 PM

Pete and ake: I, for one, think that you have a right to question all aspects of sexuality, including homosexual sex - whether you consider it from a moral or biblical standpoint, a health perspective, or from a sociological view. The right to disagree, should be sacred and should be respected.

HOWEVER the decision to marry is a decision made by two people - not by the majority of voters, not by churches or government, not by health authorities or sociologists. This is a decision that affects primarily the couple who choose to marry. It affects them profoundly, but has very little effect on the rest of society. Why is it that you think that others should prevail in this decision, and not the people directly involved?

I think the 61% majority vote in Ireland is not an indication that 61% of the people wholeheartedly approve of gay marriage. I think the message is that 61% of the people are fair-minded enough to think that they do not have the right to prevail over individual decisions on this very personal matter.

Why do you seem to think otherwise?

I raise this question in Catholic circles whenever I get the chance. A surprising number of Catholics, priests and nuns more than lay people, agree with me.

Yes, you heard me right. Catholic priests and nuns are generally well-educated people, and they usually understand the concept of how and when individual rights should prevail. Bishops, however, sometimes have a different concept - "authority" is very important to them, since they are in Upper Management.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:40 PM

I think you make a good point, Steve. It shouldn't really matter whether the majority believes gay marriage to be right or wrong. This is a matter of individual rights. If the marriage of gay people causes no harm to the general population, then the general population should not have the right to determine whether people should marry.

This is being handled mostly in the courts in the U.S., sometimes (like here in California) despite the results of one or more election initiatives where the majority has voted to outlaw gay marriage. Some people are outraged that the courts have defied the majority vote - but as I've said, this is a matter of individual rights that should not be dictated by the will of the majority.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:05 PM

Having said I don't care for referendums, I must add that I'm over the moon at the Irish result. It didn't make me love referendums more but at least it turned out to be a great day for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 08:03 PM

Well I don't think there should have been a referendum. We elect governments in democracies to make our laws. If we don't like what they do, we kick them out. Tens of millions of UK voters are going to vote in two years' time in a crucial ballot on a complex issue that they have no hope of properly getting their heads around, all because Cameron had to try to wrong-foot UKIP in order to get himself elected. The alternative to referendums is not the "imposition" of laws. It is proper government that does not feel the need to make populist appeals to a politically-uneducated electorate. And "what's right" may well not be decided by a majority vote. When the UK parliament abolished the death penalty for murder, over eighty percent of the electorate were in favour of retaining it. So who was right?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 06:19 PM

Well said, Joe O and Musket.
Prejudice has many heads.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 06:15 PM

"biblical Christianity "

You mean your interpretation of the bible. There are many fine Christiand that see it otherwise-kinda rude not to see it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 May 15 - 06:06 PM

Well congratulations. This was at least a referendum, instead of being imposed. Of course, I still believe it was a wrong decision , but I concede that biblical Christianity is in the minority, and I guess what's right is inevitably decided in society by majority vote.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 May 15 - 05:47 PM

Musket says: 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?

Well said, Musket.

If two people love each other and want to celebrate and perpetuate that love by getting married, my obligation is to congratulate them, nothing more.

What they do in bed, is none of my damn business.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 04:53 PM

Ok, I can't help posting another one-just for the enjoyment of Steve:)

"Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go its pretty damn good." 
― Woody Allen

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 04:32 PM

But you'd have to take the aspirin in order to counter the threat of heart disease represented by the cholesterol in the egg yolk. Shit. That's humanity wiped out then.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 24 May 15 - 04:32 PM

Getting back to the vote in Ireland, one of the slogans going around was "Make grá the law", and that's what we did.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 03:17 PM

""The earth could be re-populated to its current level using the number of sperm that could fit into an aspirin capsule. A chicken egg could accommodate the number of female ova necessary to repopulate the earth to its present numbers.""

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:56 PM

Not more than when the entire human population of the earth is kicked. Innit.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:54 PM

I think I read somewhere that a single giant puffball, once ripe, will release more spores when kicked than the entire human population of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:53 PM

"Irrelevant for the point that marriage can have other reasons than having sex with one another."

But, relivant to other points beyond that one.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:50 PM

A single human male produces enough sperm in two weeks to impregnate every fertile woman on the planet.

I can't decide whether that sounds like boundless fun or just bloody hard work...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:42 PM

""I know many married couples who openly confess to have no sex. ""
No sex with each other does not necessarily mean no sex of any kind.

Irrelevant for the point that marriage can have other reasons than having sex with one another.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:34 PM

"My doctor once told me that the leading cause of cancer is age, as is many heart related illness"
There you have it - don't get old -I've decided not to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:19 PM

"A single human male produces enough sperm in two weeks to impregnate every fertile woman on the planet.

well... that just goes to show how selfish and greedy my mrs has been this last 30 years...😜

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:15 PM

A single human male produces enough sperm in two weeks to impregnate every fertile woman on the planet.- so much for the need for sex for reproduction versus pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:58 PM

""Whether homosexuality causes HIV is surely immaterial.""

My doctor once told me that the leading cause of cancer is age, as is many heart related illness. :)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:53 PM

Nice post Airymouse!   :0)   subtle and amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:50 PM

Whether homosexuality causes HIV is surely immaterial.
Despite claims by some of those here, homosexuality is not a "chosen lifestyle" - it is a natural state mor many millions of people - it is not "curable" as has been claimed by the church (and be people here - again)
Given that it is natural for some people, H.I.V. is something to be regretted rather than used as a weapon to vilify homosexuals (as is happening here).
Whatever the truth about causes of HIV (still wrapped in mystery - even by the experts), the argument should be how to deal with it rather than to use it as a weapon against people whose sexual inclinations you disapprove of.
The most common sexually transmitted diseases are syphilis and Gonorrhea, both transmitted by heterosexual sex.
I have yet to hear anybody suggest that because of this, heterosexuality should cease, or be a cause of condemnation of a sexual practice.
Personally,I find the gleeful reveling in the claim that HIV is caused by homosexuality sickeningly medieval - almost as much as I find some Churchs claim' that it is "God's punishment for an unnatural act" - I suppose I'll have to put it down to the fact that I don't understand Christianity, I suppose!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:30 PM

Creep is an interesting, and often, appropriate word. I have heard it used a few times by females to refer to annoying and persistent folks seeking their attention (always unsuccessfully so).

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:20 PM

Someone asked "What's wrong with thread creep".

This thread is an example of what's wrong with it. The thread was opened as a joyous discussion of the Irish vote to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Thread creep has resulted in its being pulled off topic and becoming another soapbox for some posters' personal obsessions, which (I think) would be more fruitfully discussed if they opened their own thread and fecked off there to fight about them.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 😱
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:17 PM

Ake - goat ????

even when I'm at my daftest and being most facetious
there's always an underlying subtext of concentrated despairing sardonic seriousness...😏

can't help it - the harshness of existence tends to replace happy clappy innocence with an anguished smirk...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Airymouse
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:16 PM

This response is directed to akenaton. There is a mathematician in topology whose father wrote "historical" novels. As a kid I read one of these novels, having to do with Queen Nefertiti. Perhaps the name suggested to the author his only memorable scene, in which some lucky protagonist got to drink wine from between Nefertiti's breasts.What I remember was wondering if this could be done without leakage. I mention this, because, had it not been for Frank's father, I would probably not have known about you. My understanding, based you understand on the novel, is that in your day there was an attempt to separate "church" and state, which we see from present-day Egypt failed. To your question: I do not think you should be allowed to marry your parent, your child or your horse, although I can believe you may love them all dearly. But equal protection under the law is a fundamental right. To a mathematician, "equal" is much stronger than "equivalent" or "similar"; it means "the same." I thought we'd been through all this in Loving v. Virginia. The decision was unanimous. Loving won.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:10 PM

Since I posted cobspiracy for conspiracy, maybe I will also submit poopraganda:)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:08 PM

Oh yes, the media, in all its forms is the most likely group to "gang up" in a cobspiracy to conceal that information.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:04 PM

""I know many married couples who openly confess to have no sex. ""

No sex with each other does not necessarily mean no sex of any kind.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:03 PM

Stop acting the goat PFR.
The statistics are there, but concealed by the media.
Very few people with whom I have conversed were aware of the STD epidemic amongst MSM.
Most believed that it was just another happy clappy lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 15 - 12:57 PM

... and since when has traditional hetero marriage 'guaranteed' fidelity..???

Or being straight made you STD proof..???

There were recent statistics [of course I can't be arsed looking for them]
demonstrating the dramatic rise in STDs amongst highly promiscuous straight OAP silver shaggers... !!! 👴 👵

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 May 15 - 12:50 PM

I know many married couples who openly confess to have no sex. I guess there are many more who do not admit it, most of them because of the partners' sexual orientations. Depending on the country, the financial and social advantage can be huge, compared with staying singles. The same applies to religious orders, by the way, such as Mother Teresa's.

The current discussion may result in the role of opposite-gender marriage being reassessed as well. When financial benefits are removed, views become further relaxed.

With regards to social cohesion and child education, we must keep in mind that the concept of isolated father-mother-child households is only very recent, and restricted to "Western societies".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 12:34 PM

It appears to be you who can't read. I said it would promote fidelity, not guarantee it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 12:22 PM

Steve....are you unable to read? In very many cases homosexual relationships including "marriage" are "open".....a completely different concept to heterosexual marriage which is almost always centred around the family....Open marriages are rare.

If you are having trouble understanding this, I have offered to supply details.
The two primary partners have groups of sexual partners known to the other.....this is regarded as the "new monogamy".
The unfortunate thing is that the group of partners are under no obligation to remain true to the primary partners.
Many of the primary partners stop using protection under these circumstances and health professionals see these "open relationships" as a real danger in the further spread of HIV and other STDs.

By the way Steve I am not at all frightened by a "gay plague", or anything else on gods earth, but these are facts which should be discussed before legislation to change a centuries old institution is redefined.


If the epidemic of STD amongst the homosexual community is not caused by "promiscuity", would you kindly explain just what it IS caused by?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 15 - 12:20 PM

"PFR....you have put your finger exactly on the problem......"

Have I ?????? ... never knew I was that clever....????


errrrrrmmmmmm... what problem ???? 😕


In a more relaxed & friendly world,
suely freedom and equality of choice in legally recognised coupling
would be a rather cool idea... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 11:55 AM

Even at my tender age it never ceases to amaze me that there are people who hold pairs of notions that directly contradict each other. For example, Mother Teresa and her ilk were opposed to contraception and sex education yet told us that abortion, a major consequence of the ignorance they promoted, was the biggest evil in the world (I hear she's due to be sainted). Akenaton seems frightened half to death of a gay plague that he thinks is the product of gay promiscuity, yet he opposes gay marriage, an institution that would promote faithfulness among partners. Maybe we'll be praying to him soon as well.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 11:53 AM

PFR....you have put your finger exactly on the problem......

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 11:51 AM

I wish just for once that members would stop the personal abuse and give one credible reason for homosexual health rates being so massively worse than heterosexuals.

This is the real elephant in the room and should have a large bearing on the right to marry.

In answer to one of the Muskets, I think it is he who is about to be an ex Scot, among the homosexual community, the new "norm" is "open relationships" including "open marriage".....In a recent study 600 homosexual couples were interviewed and a large percentage admitted to being in an open union.......details can be provided on request.

BTW.....I have had no word of any "wife swapping ring" in our community.....I find the idea ridiculous, but if it were based in Inverary, they would require a large piece of additional barter. :0) .

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 24 May 15 - 11:47 AM

Are we talking exclusively gay same sex marriage ???

Any reason now why 2 old openly straight pals can't get married for stable companionship,
with all the legal benefits of financial, property & pensions security..

it might be just the perfect arrangement for some elder mudcatters...??? 👬 👭

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 24 May 15 - 11:06 AM

I cannot see how it can be wrong to vilify bigotry, oppression and militarism.

It's like pouring fertiliser on them.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:51 AM

We seem to have moved on from what happened in Friday's referendum to why it should not have happened - why am I not surprised?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:24 AM

Sorry, that was directed towards Airymouse.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:22 AM

How would you propose to deal with the legal and societal problems created by the marriage of close family relatives?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:21 AM

Kinda reminds me of a "sad-sack" whose home-town team just lost a football game- spewing "skewed reasoning" to justify why the "favoured" team were actually better players, versus facing reality - that they just lost.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:19 AM

Musket, it was you and Guest who raised the issue of disease in this thread.
Tell us why you did that.

If you discount the black-African demographic who were infected abroad, most people in UK living with HIV are MSM, and most new diagnoses are also MSM.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:17 AM

Airymouse, do you really believe that marriage should be available for anyone who wants it regardless of the circumstances?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Airymouse
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:10 AM

I of course would have voted "Yes." but there are two important issues that seem to be lost in the shuffle;
1) Jefferson's idea of separation of church and state is fundamentally sound.
2) Freedom should not be subject to a vote; it is a matter of law. I admit we have seen 5 justices sworn to uphold the constitution fail to do it in Bush v. Gore, but to me the idea of voting on the issue of marriage equality is like voting on whether or not 5=5.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:07 AM

Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are defined by their sexual preference, without that there would be no difference at all.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 10:01 AM

These figures have a bearing on whether or not homosexual "marriage" should be legalised.

Other sectors of society are presently prohibited from marriage on supposed health grounds, even if there is no chance of conception.

Unfortunately for them, they do not have a voluble pressure group working in their interests and in my view against the interests of wider society.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:56 AM

See? More distorted crap. All to smear gay marriage, even though sex isn't part of this discussion.

The Public Health England reports on sexual health, to include the rest of The UK note that more gay men at risk come forward for testing than any other risk group and the raw figures cannot therefore be used to villify people for lifestyle. The figures also note that despite that, more Heterosexual people are living with HIV. The figures and commentary go on to note that the risk is most in those of sub Saraha origin whilst the proactive gay issues charities are most vocal therefore a distorted public view can easily be ascertained.

Being a bit sick aren't you Keith? Can't you even celebrate that opinions on the rights of others died with the twentieth century and bigotry is to be shunned?

I expect it from Akenaton. His arse fixation is well known to Mudcat. You however jump from celebrating till your friend turns out and then feeling safe, resort to your true self.

I'm sure God loves you though.

Musket noted that those who bring sex into it must sit in church at weddings daydreaming of the happy couple having sex. Quite...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:39 AM

I did not raise the issue.
I merely replied to a point put to me by name by Musket and by Guest 24 May 15 - 05:09 AM .

I replied with a single sentence from the latest report with a link to the same.

What did I do wrong?
Why not criticise those who raised the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:33 AM

Disgraceful behaviour from both Keith and Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:26 AM

Some folks look for any door to open to repeat a thinly-disguised anti-gay stance, through HIV. Give us all a break:)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 09:18 AM

To the uninformed or devious guest.
From PHE.........."Gay, bisexual and other MSM
•HIV still disproportionally affects gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. The number of MSM diagnoses was a record high (3250/6000). This approximates to an adult prevalence of 59 per 1,000. In London, an estimated 1 in 8 MSM are HIV positive compared to 1 in 26 outside London"

This means that in 2013 the latest figures available state that the total of new HIV infections was 6000....of this total, 3250 we amongst MSM.

The total of new infections amongst males was 4840....of this total 3250 were MSM.

Homosexuals make up 1.5% of the adult population of the UK, accrording to the Office of National Statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 15 - 08:34 AM

Guest,
"In the UK, the HIV epidemic is largely concentrated among gay, bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (referred to "MSM") and black-African heterosexual men and women."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 08:04 AM

2005, ten years ago , seemed to be notable for gay issues in many world locations.


2005 - gay rights news 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 24 May 15 - 07:58 AM

Speaking of ten years ago, in Ireland, from wikki:

28 July 2005 – the Provisional Irish Republican Army ended its armed campaign and ordered all its units to dump arms. The organisation also ordered its members not to engage in any other activities of any kind.

10 years ago in Ireland 

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?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 24 May 15 - 06:21 AM

Sorry, that should read "marriage".

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:30 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 15 - 02:31 AM

PS - what's wrong with thread creep?

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: 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: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 May 15 - 01:27 AM

Tom Lehrer's Vatican Rag.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:33 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 - 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: Joe Offer
Date: 23 May 15 - 06:18 PM

Jim Carroll says:

"This looks like the beginning of the end for Christianity"
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: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 15 - 06:10 PM

That was to Joe Offer.

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: 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: Fergie
Date: 23 May 15 - 04:37 PM

Good man Joe, it was great to meet you when you were in Dublin, hope to see you here in Ireland again one day. You know that you will always get a warm welcome from the singers and musicians of Ireland.
Stay safe me auld pal.
Fergus Russell

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 May 15 - 04:31 PM

Whether gay sex and marriage is moral or immoral, I do not believe that church or civil authorities should have the right to interfere with it. And even if the majority of voters opposes gay marriage, I do not believe that the majority should have the right to interfere with the rights of individuals to marry whom they choose. I was worried about the election in Ireland, because I was afraid that gay marriage might easily become a victim of the tyranny of the majority - and I'm very relieved by the results of this election.

As a Catholic, I hope that my church can respond to these election results graciously. I do think that church leaders have a right to question the morality of gay marriage - despite that fact that I disagree with them. I believe that it is a very healthy thing if we are free to question - even if we disagree with the majority opinion, or the opinion of those in authority.

This change took place in Ireland because the Irish people have finally come to realize that they are and should be free to question. Now, I hope that the future majority will not impose a new oppression upon those who question their decision.

My last trip to Ireland was a tour sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy, of which I am an associate member. I visited convents and talked with nuns all over Ireland. Most are very much like the nuns I know in the U.S. - very open about questioning the male leadership of the Catholic Church. Yes, I did meet some Catholic lay people in Ireland who were so conservative it was frightening, but the priests and nuns I met were far more open to questioning authority that many of you might think.

So, I'm glad that gay marriage was victorious in the Irish election, and I'm hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will soon make gay marriage lawful throughout the United States.

It's about time.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 15 - 03:51 PM

As Joe O often says, today, not all RC religious folks blindly follow the dictates of the RC church, but adhere to what makes sense to them personally.

While the impact of the church on public institutions has been significantly (and, IMO rightly) reduced - I suspect regular church attendance has declined, that certainly does not mean that there are not many folks who consider themselves RC and "personally" religious in their own way.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 15 - 03:42 PM

".yet the vast majority of abuse was against male youths by mature men."
"The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of allegations, investigations, trials, and convictions of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests, nuns, and members of Roman Catholic orders against boys and girls as young as 3 years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14"
Jim Carroll

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

"The church were fully represented in the vote"
Should be - in the press and on the radio and television
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 15 - 03:19 PM

".it is rather an indictment of media power."
Can't speak about how the debate was reported elsewhere, but the media were fairly balanced (the serious media, that is), giving both sides an equal say - or local press, in fact, gave more prominence to the "nos".
The church were fully represented in the vote, though in my opinion, no power group, especially one with the Catholic Churches record on sexual matters, should not have had a voice - individual churchmen maybe - not a body which has abused its position by abusing and betraying children in their care - in the light of the clerical abuse scandal, their stance was ludicrous - they certainly were nor particularly interested in "protecting the family".
"Whether or not the majority of the population agree is of no importance."
It is probably the most significant aspect of this vote - 10 years or so ago, I doubt if this proposal would have stood a snowballs of being passed - not with the church' opposition - all gone!! - as the Archbishop of Dublin said " the Catholic Church needs to take a reality check".
"This looks like the beginning of the end for Christianity"
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.
There is no doubt that people will continue to believe... no problem - in fact, if the believers and the churches practiced the practical teachings of their various religions, the world would be a better place - the fact that it doesn't happen is borne out by the double standards displayed by the church on matters such as this - say one thing, do the other.      
Great day for the Irish, or what??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Fergie
Date: 23 May 15 - 03:06 PM

The entirety of clerical child abuse was against CHILDREN.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:57 PM

it is ironic, that it is said that the priest abuse scandal has led to a reaction against the church on this issue.....yet the vast majority of abuse was against male youths by mature men.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:52 PM

Welcome Ireland to 21st century.
I think the one third who voted against will soon have their fears allayed and will wonder what all the fuss about.
The North will have to follow I am sure.

SRS, PLEASE just delete the belligerent posts and leave the thread.
Why punish everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:51 PM

My point Ed, is that my views are not influenced by any religious leanings, but from a social standpoint the Church have taken the correct stance.    Whether or not the majority of the population agree is of no importance.

When the vast majority of the population agreed with the criminalisation of homosexuality.....I opposed it.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:50 PM

I suggest threads are now more swiftly deleted rather than merely closed,
because a faction with a particular mindset
has 'gained' control of mudcat modding...

"There's a new Sheriff in town who don't ask questions and is quick on the draw..."



I've seen similar power shifts in the direction towards petty despotism
happen too often before
in local community arts & education volunteer groups & committees...

I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on this point.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Fergie
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:31 PM

Easter 1916 (William Butler Yeats)
I

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

II

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse.
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vain-glorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

III

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter, seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute change.
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim;
And a horse plashes within it
Where long-legged moor-hens dive
And hens to moor-cocks call.
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

IV

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death.
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead.
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse --
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:31 PM

""However, I partially agree that those who voted against will be called bigots and homophobes when that is not always the case.""

Being from a country where gay marriage has been legal for some time, it has not been a big deal. So, I don't see that fear as being reasonable. However, it does send the message (aka, a wake up call) of how the majority sees it- versus a minority, which has enjoyed a significant influence on institutions, acting as if they represent the majority of citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:25 PM

I can understand why threads are closed. I fail to see why they are deleted.
I disagree with you Ake, I believe that this vote will go a long way to creating equality. However, I partially agree that those who voted against will be called bigots and homophobes when that is not always the case.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:24 PM

I had never heard of the "Iona Institute" before (it's a company set up in Ireland in 2006, with no links to Iona). I have heard of the Iona Community (founded 1938), though (and met quite a few of them, both on Iona and in Glasgow). Here is their statement on human sexuality:

http://iona.org.uk/2011/04/06/iona-community-statement-on-human-sexuality/#

The Community is likely to be around long after this "institute" is gone and forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:24 PM

"As an atheist, I believe the Catholic Church were completely correct on this issue"

Not sure if it meaningful, or logical, in adding that your Athiest leaning? But, you seem to repeat it in many posts. To me, it adds as much to the case you are attempting to make as saying you are also a bowler. (Disclaimer, in case my post leads to the thread being closed- No offense intended to any bowler)

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:17 PM

It is possible to disagree without becoming abusive, sling mud and cast aspersions on those who you don't agree with. There are probably a few examples of this decorum early in the mudcat history, but few if any recent examples.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: akenaton
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:08 PM

SRS, With the greatest respect, if only threads without abuse and fighting are allowed to stand, that means that only threads with which the "liberals" here agree with will ever stand, as they are the abusers and the fighters.
This is a tactic....as I have explained many times, whenever their ideology is exposed they start being abusive and the thread is closed.

I thoroughly agree with Leeneia....this is not a vote for any kind of meaningful equality.....it is rather an indictment of media power.
If the vote went 2 or 3 to 1 in favour of "yes", there would still be millions of "evil bigots" living in Ireland, because that is what this vote really means....the legalisation of tyranny.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a door to any type of meaningful equality.....only economics and a change in the political system can provide that, and the media are hardly likely to encourage THAT sort of dissent.

As an atheist, I believe the Catholic Church were completely correct on this issue, marriage is about many things but chiefly the construction of the natural family.
This looks like the beginning of the end for Christianity, we are headed towards a completely secular society where anything goes and "self" rules.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 23 May 15 - 02:06 PM

Final call : 62.1 Yes, 37.9 N0.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 15 - 01:39 PM

Yep, it's a great result, but the RC and CoI still control most of the primary and plenty of the secondary schools in Ireland. When their power is removed that really will be a time for celebration.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 15 - 01:10 PM

Pretty well official
Catholic Archbishop Martin has decalred that the Catholic Church needs to take a "reality check".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 23 May 15 - 12:49 PM

The BBC news has just announced that not all the results are in, but that a substantial win for the Yes campaign is forecast,

I for one am over the moon. This is a big leap forward, not just for gay rights, but because it's almost the last nail in the coffin of repression which used to be the triumvirate of Church, State and Education in the bad old days of the Irish Free State.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 15 - 12:10 PM

"it's a gigantic leap from the Dark Ages into the 21st century"
Let's not be too hasty!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 15 - 12:07 PM

its a very good start.
And, in a country rooted in Roman Catholic dogma, it's a gigantic leap from the Dark Ages into the 21st century.

IMHO, YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:58 AM

Well chin up, though, eh, leeneia? It's not bad, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:56 AM

SRS - ok, so just close a thread if/when the fighting gets too much.

Deleting it also indiscriminately punishes those many non combative contributors
who spend much time and thought on writing constructive positive posts.

'You' are ruthlessly obliterating all the good and stimulating posts that should remain as part of mudcat's
additional value as a contemporary social and cultural 'think tank' reference archive....

For just one example, "The Cake Thread"
agree or disagree with the position he took,
but some paragraphs of Joe's posts were quality nuggets of wisdom
that the deleting mod was just wrong to totally discard..

.. and maybe even one of mine wasn't completely facetious shite...😜

btw... Yeah.. well won result Ireland...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:55 AM

I'm glad to hear of a humane and intelligent vote, but get real. "Changed utterly?"

Does Ireland suddenly have no unemployment?
Is there not one hungry person left?
Is there no longer any alcoholism or drug abuse?
Does each child have a stable and loving home?
Is there no prostitution?

If you could answer yes to all those, then that would be a nation changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:51 AM

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Stilly River Sage - PM
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:20 AM

[Rolls eyes]

You guys just don't get it. It's the fighting, not any particular issue, that is the problem. Stop fighting and just about any topic would be allowed to run it's course.

It's entirely up to you.

So why did you post this in this thread? Are you trying to show us how out of touch you are?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:45 AM

Well done the people of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:31 AM

excellent!

thanks for posting the link to the story about the stolen & almost burnt ballot box, Peter Laban

I'd love to see Irish (& other) cartoonists reactions to this - can you post links to any you see?

thanks

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:29 AM

Great news for Ireland, and an object lesson for other countries. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will see the handwriting on the wall as they consider whether to make it legal here.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:20 AM

[Rolls eyes]

You guys just don't get it. It's the fighting, not any particular issue, that is the problem. Stop fighting and just about any topic would be allowed to run it's course.

It's entirely up to you.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:20 AM

Wonderful news! Once again, fairness, equality and good-heartedness wins the day.
Congratulations to Ireland - Top Banana! 👍

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:19 AM

'The story above about the woman trying to set fire to a ballot box whilst waving a crucifix was rather funny. Letting her go without charge was an excellent gesture in the spirit of tolerance as there was no harm done. But a story in the press laughing at bigotry made it a result anyway.'

You seem to have missed two important aspects of that article though. Breda O Brien is part of the vocal opposition to the constitutional change and a membe of the Iona Institute. The Waterford Whispers, in addition, is a satirical site along the lines of, say, the Onion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:17 AM

For any people who still see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice or a matter of choice at all I'd recommend reading "We Are Our Brains" by DF Swaab.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 15 - 11:09 AM

"The sun's out today"- and the sky is not falling.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:59 AM

It's about time.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:39 AM

All this equality eh? Perhaps the mods might realise there is safety in numbers and start batting for the winning side?

The story above about the woman trying to set fire to a ballot box whilst waving a crucifix was rather funny. Letting her go without charge was an excellent gesture in the spirit of tolerance as there was no harm done. But a story in the press laughing at bigotry made it a result anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:34 AM

Wonderful result, a true cause to celebrate.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:32 AM

Yeah, I agree with that. It was my bloody thread and I hardly ever start threads!

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker 🍰
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:30 AM

I don't know if my recently deceased gay activist sibling believed in heaven..
but there may very well be some very jubilant high-energy dancing going on right at his moment... 😎



[Perhaps in celebration closer to earth, the mod who deleted the cake thread,
could swallow his/her pride as a celebratory gesture of goodwill
and restore it merely as "This thread is closed" ???]

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:16 AM

Evolution in action. The good people of Ireland have shown the world what we really knew all along. Tolerance, equality and respect. Three aspects of the people I found during my time living just outside Dublin and indeed ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 May 15 - 10:15 AM

Great. The sun's out today for once and this news is ,er, the icing on the cake...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 23 May 15 - 09:18 AM

Good news for civilization! We'll be celebrating tonight with Powers and Guinness and Irish tunes and songs.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 23 May 15 - 08:17 AM

After many years of discrimination, followed by small and big gains, in 2005, Canada became the fourth country worldwide to legalize same-sex marriage. Big gains have evolved in equality for all citizens, internationally, since then. Hopefully, Ireland joins the compassionate countries of the world. A bit of discrimination history,in the link below.


Canada and same sex marriage 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 23 May 15 - 07:52 AM

As an aside: got a great chuckle out of this one :

Breda O'Brien arrested attempting to burn local ballor box

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 23 May 15 - 07:48 AM

The country did itself proud. It's a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 15 - 07:48 AM

Here is one Irish Catholic couple, married nearly fifty years, who voted yes:

"We are Catholics, and we are taught to believe in compassion and love and fairness and inclusion. Equality, that's all we're voting for."

Brighid and Paddy Whyte

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 15 - 07:47 AM

Great news - hopefully the 2/3 to 1 majority will be confirmed.
Interesting result for the other referendum - have to say, I wasn't looking forwards to the presidential limousine doing wheelies up and down our road
Jim Carroll

Subject: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Fergie
Date: 23 May 15 - 07:34 AM

Ireland has voted in huge numbers in the marriage-equality referendum and the result is an overwhelming YES. The power of the Irish Catholic Church to control the political landscape in the Republic of Ireland is over and I for one am delighted on both counts.

Ireland has become the first country in the world to introduce marriage-equality through a democratic referendum of all it's people.

The changes that have been wrought in social attitudes in this country over the past twenty five years are astounding and I am proud to be of a generation that have shaken off the shackles of religious control that stifled the democratic process in this country for generations.