BS: All changed, changed utterly.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:35 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: 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: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:30 AM

AND 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 - 06:35 AM

STILL MORE
Jim Carroll

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:07 PM

Amazing..

Utterly amazing.

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: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 May 15 - 12:16 PM

ROTFLMAO! 😄😄

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: 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: 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 - 12:40 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.