A bit surprising that Ireland should be the first country to legalise homosexual marriage. My Irish relations, a bourgeois bunch, would be pretty against I think.
As a thoughtless young radical bohemian I was contemptuous of legal marriage of any sort. Nevertheless I have been married twice, each time to 'legitimise' my children. I don't regret it and my second marriage, which will last until I die fingers crossed, didn't happen until after the second birth, Herself being radical too. But we didn't want to embarrass the, er, progeny.
I don't understand why gays want to marry though, or to have children. It must be weird for the adopted or surrogate-supplied nippers. Even if you don't think (as both Herself and I used to) that the great advantage of being gay was no children, a 'form of marriage' doesn't seem relevant or necessary.
There must be a lot of really angry Irish Catholic traditionalists tonight. We'll be hearing more of this.
|
It's not the first - simply the first to go to a referendum.
Amusingly the only place in the British Isles that gays won't be able to marry will be Ulster, where the bigots exist on both sides of the politico-religious divide.
>>There must be a lot of really angry Irish Catholic traditionalists tonight
Good.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 23 May 15 at 19:27
|
>> >>There must be a lot of really angry Irish Catholic traditionalists tonight
>> Good.
They aren't all ghastly bigots Lygonos. Many succeed in staying humane, often at the cost of fudging over the religious precepts.
A few high-profile cases of child abuse have created a false impression among credulous - and bigoted actually - non-Catholics that many or even most priests are nonces and fiddlers given the chance. This is far from the truth judging by my own experience which is considerable.
I've known two eminent Jesuits. One was my own great-uncle, who had a saintly side but often beat my father at chess. My father liked him a lot and chortlingly called him a 'wicked old man'. The other taught me at my last school and later rose to the top of the slippery Jesuit pole. He was as hard as nails and very bright like most Jesuits. Grappled in later life with doubts about faith and all that went with it. A privilege to have known both of them and they did me a lot more good than harm intellectually.
|
>> >> >>
>> A few high-profile cases of child abuse have created a false impression among credulous -
>> and bigoted actually - non-Catholics that many or even most priests are nonces and fiddlers
>> given the chance. This is far from the truth judging by my own experience which
>> is considerable.
>>
>>
>>
Although the abusers were in a small minority, there were more than just a few. And the real scandal was that most others, from their colleagues right up to the Pope himself knew exactly what was happening and not only did nothing about it but covered it up, and did so for many decades.
And you can add the Gardaà and the political establishment to that list too. I spent my formative years being taught by priests, nuns and monks in catholic schools both here and in Ireland and a more ignorant bunch of bigots it would have been hard to find.
|
|
It occurs to me that as a longtime atheist I am somehow in a false position with this defence of the Catholic clergy and Jesuit order in particular. Perhaps I should have pointed out that my own experience involved some privilege and some good luck; others may well have suffered more than I did at the hands of educational priests and nuns. Indeed I know someone, a cult film director, who remains bitterly critical of the Christian Brothers to this day. The CB are a bit downmarket by Jesuit standards though.
|
In fact all I'm trying to say really is that the experience of school is so overwhelmingly awful that the difference between Catholic, Protestant and progressive sinks into insignificance.
Sure, schools run by celibate priests or nuns have their own feel and their own rank pong of candlegrease and seldom-washed robes. But Grange Hill in real life is a pretty gothic experience for most nippers. The really ghastly thing is school.
I'm tempted to add: Unless you have had the good luck to be abused at home. But that would be in very poor taste and very right wing sounding.
|
Stop digging that hole AC:)
Pat
|
"...schools run by celibate priests or nuns have their own feel..."
That's one way of putting it.
There's an unconscious (dare I say Freudian?) aptness in your phrasing.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 26 May 15 at 17:26
|
>> There's an unconscious (dare I say Freudian?) aptness in your phrasing.
How smart of you to notice a very explicitly conscious, and no you should not dare mention Dr Freud, aptness in my phrasing. Really makes a chap feel valued, that sort of praise. Thank you Observer, or can I call you Osservatore?
|
"... all I'm trying to say really is that the experience of school is so overwhelmingly awful that the difference between Catholic, Protestant and progressive sinks into insignificance."
Really, no. The mindset is different, and worse, when children are treated as receptacles to be filled with approved beliefs, or abused under the cover that authoritarianism can easily produce.
Although historically we have to acknowledge a debt to the Church in ages past in preserving learning, offering education and even medical care for the poor, since then it's become increasingly irrelevant and downright harmful, although nowadays maybe its very irrelevance has weakened its influence.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 26 May 15 at 17:40
|
It's not a matter of children being "treated as receptacles" - all kids are inevitably receptacles of whatever values their parents hold, whether it's religious, moral or whatever. (For parents read whoever is mainly responsible for bringing them up)
The Church, and religion in general, isn't irrelevant to everyone, by a long chalk. Undoubtedly in the UK the CofE (and maybe other "traditional UK" religions) is weaker but religion (whether it happens in a church, synagogue or mosque) it is still a very powerful influence for many.
|
>> in the UK the CofE (and maybe other "traditional UK" religions) is weaker but religion
>> (whether it happens in a church, synagogue or mosque) it is still a very powerful
>> influence for many.
The CofE still has a very big role in education in England. Look at the number of Voluntary Aided etc schools, particularly at Primary level.
|
>> Indeed I know someone, a cult film director, who remains bitterly critical of
>> the Christian Brothers to this day. The CB are a bit downmarket by Jesuit standards
>> though.
>>
Relatives of mine who failed to escape the Irish education system before falling into the clutches of the Christian Brothers describe them as the SS wing of the Catholic Church without the nice bits.
|
"...surprising that Ireland should be the first country to legalise homosexual marriage."
The UK legalised it in 2013 (Royal Assent 17 July 2013). Of course, technically it's not yet enshrined in law in Ireland.
Neither in Ireland nor the UK will/does the law bind any religious group to actually conduct marriage ceremonies.
Ireland was the first country to legalise same-sex marriage following a referendum, which is an interesting point.
'Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said if the referendum was an affirmation of the views of young people, the church had a "huge task in front of it".' (BBC news)
|
As it effects no one but those who decide to partake I don't see what business it is of anyone else whether gays marry or not and no way should it be illegal. Ireland has turned from a very conservative and religious country to a fairly tolerant one in a remarkably short space of time.
I am mostly pleased however, owing to being Irish born and raised as a Catholic. I have come to loathe the Catholic church with a passion and am happy to gloat at their displeasure at the result.
|
|
You are not alone. Father Hudson's Homes might ring a bell. If I were to believe, it would be C of I or C of E. Seem quite reasonable in comparison with RC!
|
I have one gay married couple as closish friends and another as distant acquaintances - nice people all four - They are committed to each other in long term loving relationships, their sexuality matters not one yot. In fact the brother of one of them featured in the C4 documentary set to music.
My attitude...there's enough hate in this world without contemplating my navel fluff about gay marriage.
|
|
Why do gay people want to marry, AC? For the same reason as any of us: to enjoy the legal and social recognition of their relationship - for better, for worse, all that. A dear friend of mine recently lost her long-term partner to cancer. The commemorations that followed all simply used the word 'wife', rather than any of the ghastly circumlocutions that 'confirmed bachelors' and their female equivalents once had to endure. Hurrah for that - and bravo to Ireland for taking another step away from the Middle Ages.
|
Marriage is probably still just the norm for hetero couples.
While many of us via rebellion and inertia (or lack of it) remain 'partners' doing so may lack recognition from more traditional friends and rellies. It also requires degrees of financial/tax planning and organisation that come automatically with marriage.
No reason why same sex couples should not be able to make same choices.
|
Keeping things simple, if everyone is equal under the law with the same obligations under the law then all of the rights under the law should be available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, creed or colour and therefore to ban one group from marriage is just not right.
I am glad Ireland voted yes.
During canvassing for the recent elections I had leaflets through the door condemning our local MP, who has done a lot for our town, for voting for same sex marriages. Disgraceful.
|
Some interesting and thoughtful stuff in this thread. I hope no one thinks I have taken a homophobic line. My doubts, such as they are, pertain to the institution of marriage and not to the sexuality of the participants. I think if asked to vote I would have voted for same-gender marriage.
I failed though to bear in mind the legal aspect, which in the final analysis has to do with property and inheritance, very important in the real life I so often neglect.
I've said before that this site often teaches me things unexpectedly. This thread is a case in point. Well done chaps. Herself sometimes complains that I waste time here. True enough, but it isn't all wasted time.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 24 May 15 at 00:17
|
>> Keeping things simple, if everyone is equal under the law with the same obligations under
>> the law then all of the rights under the law should be available to everyone
>> regardless of sexual orientation, race, creed or colour and therefore to ban one group from
>> marriage is just not right.
>>
Would you debar people from marriage if they were very close relatives, or were already married to someone else?
Why should a same sex marriage be debarred on grounds of consanguinity just because the production of children by say brother and sister is undesirable or illegal?
Or would you agree that certain equal rights should be denied under the law?
|
>> During canvassing for the recent elections I had leaflets through the door condemning our local MP, who has done a lot for our town, for voting for same sex marriages. Disgraceful.
>>
I think we may live in the same constituency, Zippy. I didn't vote for the MP concerned, but I was similarly appalled by those leaflets.
|
b***** good note, WilldB.
To be honest I didn't take it all that seriously until PeterS posted his perspective some months ago, which was rather enlightening.
i still dont believe in compelling churches, but there should be no legal barriers.
|
>> i still dont believe in compelling churches, but there should be no legal barriers.
Yes FMR. That would be fascistic bullying. No need for it.
|
Or, as I think it should be called, just marriage ;)
I have to say that I am (pleasantly) surprised by how far acceptance of equality has moved in a relatively short space of time both here and in much of Europe. Interestingly, of the 'developed' world the U.S. trails farthest, relative to where I'd expect it to be, if that makes sense? Though where I expect it to be is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that the most-visited parts for me are California and New York.
|
|
Being a bit of a romantic, the word 'marriage' to me has a very specific meaning. We are now entering a bizarre Lewis Carroll world where a word can mean anything that you want it to mean “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
|
>> Being a bit of a romantic, the word 'marriage' to me has a very specific
>> meaning. We are now entering a bizarre Lewis Carroll world where a word can mean
>> anything that you want it to mean “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said
>> in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean —
>> neither more nor less.’
That was my reaction when this was in the news in I suppose 2012. I have no objection at all to equal rights, I just thought somebody needed to invent a new word for it if civil partnership didn't cover it.
No skin off my nose though - and it was pretty clear that most people approved and didn't care about the redefinition so it was right to enable it.
|
>> Being a bit of a romantic, the word 'marriage' to me has a very specific
>> meaning.
Something between 2 people who love each other?
|
"Something between 2 people who love each other?"
Indeed yes - but a little more specific than that.
|
|
In what sense more specific?
|
>> In what sense more specific?
Specifically.
|
>> Specifically.
>>
Specifically what?
|
"In what sense more specific?"
Let me tell you a story – it’s called ‘the parable of the cyclist and the motorist’……….
There was once a cyclist, a keen cyclist, but a fellow with a something of an inferiority complex – he felt that motorists regarded him as something of a lesser being. Indeed, there were some motorists who did look down on him and treated him roughly, but most motorists saw him as being the same as them – there simply wasn’t an issue. Nevertheless, the cyclist argued that he was the same as a motorist in that he needed to use some form of transport to get from A to B - and his chosen transport had wheels and went on the road the same as a car. And so it came to pass that the meaning of the word ‘motorist’ was broadened to include those who rode bicycles as well …………. and why not?
|
|
Now you're trying to be clever and falling in a heap. If you think the form of marriage you've chosen for yourself is superior and special and should be denied to others that nature hasn't made exactly like you then have the balls to say so.
|
"If you think the form of marriage you've chosen for yourself is superior and special "
You are becoming a bit excitable, Will, I didn't say that. My idea of marriage takes into account biological differences - 'biological' - no more, no less.
|
>> "In what sense more specific?"
>>
>> Let me tell you a story – it’s called ‘the parable of the cyclist and
>> the motorist’……….
Or just say what you mean rather than go around the houses. Conversion is much easier that way.
|
It's not Haywain who is being deliberately obtuse, at least not to start with. I knew what he meant, which was what he said - the proposals necessitated change to the customary definition of marriage. "...a contract by which a man and a woman to become husband and wife...".
Interestingly, even my 1993 edition of Chambers continues "...a similar ceremony etc. between homosexuals...", which I frankly do not think was the generally assumed meaning at the time but it seems things were changing 20 years earlier.
All's well that ends well.
|
|
I understand now it's in plain English. Well words and their meaning change all the time. This is another one.
|
But we're talking here about what society as a whole feels it should allow and support, HW; it's not the law's business what any individual feels is 'romantic'. Marriage is - and always has been - primarily about securing property (a point, incidentally, that those who object to 'the institution of marriage' but want their inheritance rights protected anyway tend to miss.)
I don't like hard boiled eggs, so I don't eat them. Doesn't give me the right to make them illegal.
|
>> Being a bit of a romantic, the word 'marriage' to me has a very specific
>> meaning. We are now entering a bizarre Lewis Carroll world where a word can mean
>> anything that you want it to mean “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said
>> in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean —
>> neither more nor less.’
>>
To me marriage means two people living together and choosing whether or not to bring other lives into their lives. OK, old fashioned I know.
I do worry that children are just a commodity to be bought and sold.
Look at Madonna as an example, a successful business woman who can just buy a child. So many lines, so much confusion.
I'm not suggesting a gay couple would be rubbish at parenting as hetero couples have proved to be just as useless at it. The biology just stacks up against the gay argument for me. Call me a Clarkson dynosaur if you must. I don't understand why a gay couple would want a family when biology tells them it's not going to happen. Maybe the answer is genetic engineering opens the door ? If it works for hetero couples then it works for gay couples too.
It would be fascinating to look into a crystal ball 100 years from now and see what the planet was doing. I probably should have paid more attention in history !!!
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 24 May 15 at 19:07
|
Marriage isn't just about children. What about those (Like me) who never wanted any, or people who wed too late in life to have any? They can still marry. The point is that it does no-one any harm at all if a same sex want to marry like everyone else so I don't see how anyone could object except maybe on religious grounds, and my feelings on that have already been made plain.
Of course there may be sound reasons why marriage is not allowed in certain circumstances, such as between blood relatives where it is suggested that any offspring would inherit health risks. But in other cases, why not?
|
>> Marriage isn't just about children. What about those (Like me) who never wanted any, or
>> people who wed too late in life to have any? They can still marry. The
>> point is that it does no-one any harm at all if a same sex want
>> to marry like everyone else so I don't see how anyone could object except maybe
>> on religious grounds, and my feelings on that have already been made plain.
>>
Of course it is not, but to those who want children, you know how biology has mapped it.
People who do not want children, job done, regardless whether it be hetero sexual or gay.
Gay couples who want children gets a bit awkward. I'm not suggesting gay couples are any less able just history does not support the argument so how do we know who will be good at it and who will not ? Not suggesting biology gets this question right either by the way.
Last edited by: gmac on Sun 24 May 15 at 19:53
|
Given that, as far as I know, there's still a large number of children in care that need permanent homes, if a gay couple (of either gender) are able to provide stability to a child's upbringing by adopting then I think that has to be a good thing. Of course a male/female couple will be able to more easily provide suitable role models, but does the lack of suitable heterosexual couples willing to adopt mean that those children should be denied stability? Seems a pretty harsh line to take to me...and not on the adopting couple, but on the children...
There's also a large number of gay couples (of both genders) that use surrogacy; I struggle more with this, though under different circumstances we wouldn't have ruled it out. It feels more selfish, but as one of the brickbats sometimes thrown is that we (the 'gays') are not contributing to society by raising productive successors to further economic growth, I wouldn't lose much sleep over that either...
As ever, a complex topic not easily addressed in a few paragraphs, but since when has that stopped a Car4Play poster ;)
|
The prospects for a child depend upon whether they are 'wanted' or not.
Has bog all to do with gender/sexuality of the parents.
|
>> Given that, as far as I know, there's still a large number of children in
>> care that need permanent homes, if a gay couple (of either gender) are able to
>> provide stability to a child's upbringing by adopting then I think that has to be
>> a good thing.
Why? If nature is hitting you over the head with a big sledge hammer saying this does not work then why is it a good thing ? By the way I'm not suggesting a dysfunctional heterosexual couple would be the answer. In a functioning society parents would ALL take care of their offspring.
>> As ever, a complex topic not easily addressed in a few paragraphs, but since when
>> has that stopped a Car4Play poster ;)
>>
It's all part of being part of this group. Some people deliberately wynd others up, some are genuinely interested in finding out other views. I think they call it society but on the web it's a bit more condensed.
|
>> Why? If nature is hitting you over the head with a big sledge hammer saying
>> this does not work
Not work in procreational terms, but does that preclude bringing up children once they've arrived?
Last edited by: Focusless on Sun 24 May 15 at 20:41
|
>> Why? If nature is hitting you over the head with a big sledge hammer saying
>> this does not work then why is it a good thing ?
I didn't realise being gay and wanting children were mutually exclusive...clearly you are better informed than me ;) And given the number of heterosexual couples who don't want children I'm not sure the 'nature' argument is that robust...
Of course in an ideal world then all parent would want, be able and be willing to bring up their children. Given the number of children without stable homes however we are not there. And given that, along with the fact there are gay couples who do want children, and are willing and able to provide a stable home, ruling them out would see somewhat shortsighted...
|
One would think that the challenge that a gay couple would face would be to represent a balanced role model;
However, that is also the challenge of a single parent family and we don't particularly have a problem with single parent families - do we? Neither should managing that be beyond the ability of good parent(s).
Presumably then the fear is that somehow gay parents will influence the child to be gay;
Well if that type of influence were likely, we wouldn't have gay people in the first place since everybody would be affected by their heterosexual parents.
And I doubt that there are more "bad" gay parents than "bad" straight parents, rather the other way around I suspect.
If the child is loved by caring parents, then surely there can be no issue. If the child is stuck with a couple of bad-uns, then its going to go badly. Straight / gay not being particularly relevant.
So it is difficult to see how one can believe that gay parents are not a significantly better option than no parents - so lets forget the [imaginary] issue until there are no abandoned, unloved, or otherwise unfortunate children in need of a loving home.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 24 May 15 at 21:00
|
>> I didn't realise being gay and wanting children were mutually exclusive...clearly you are better informed
>> than me ;) And given the number of heterosexual couples who don't want children I'm
>> not sure the 'nature' argument is that robust...
>>
Wanting and getting are not the same thing. I want a McLaren, I have a family and responsibilities that prevent it from happening.
How many gay couples have successfully, naturally (without a science lab and team), procreated ? Answer that one and you'll have billions in the bank.
Nature blocks hetero couples for various reasons, gay couples ? it may happen one day...
I understand you and your partner may WANT children but nature has not granted you that wish, not without some intervention. When I get my intervention for my McLaren I really do wish you get your intervention too.
|
>> Wanting and getting are not the same thing. I want a McLaren, I have a
>> family and responsibilities that prevent it from happening.
A statement which does zilch to answer Peter's point.
Children are NOT a consumer good we have to save up for or take on credit.
|
>> Children are NOT a consumer good we have to save up for or take on
>> credit.
Really ? Tell the multi-billionaires that.
While I agree with the sentiment of your comment the reality is not quite there.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 May 15 at 01:13
|
|
A couple who want a child enough to go through the prolonged and painstaking adoption rigmarole (And I know people who have adopted, phone calls from Social Services at 11:30pm to make sure you're not legless or bad tempered when you are woken up) are likely to make better parents than 16yo Chardonay and her current squeeze who has stepped in while the fathers of her two nippers are behind bars.
|
Isn't part of our achievement as humans to transcend what nature alone commands or allows? I speak as a committed Darwinian - there is no supernatural authority and nature is the most powerful force there is - but we humans can keep alive people that nature would allow to die, feed and house those without the means to fend for themselves and, yes, allow the right of a full and happy family life - even as parents in some cases - to those who, for reasons that are nobody's business but their own, prefer to do that with someone of the same sex.
Stable and committed families are a good thing; even the most toxic Christian-Taliban Republican will tell you that. So a measure that makes it possible for more people to live in such families is also a good thing.
|
>> Isn't part of our achievement as humans to transcend what nature alone commands or allows?
>> I speak as a committed Darwinian - there is no supernatural authority and nature is
>> the most powerful force there is - but we humans can keep alive people that
>> nature would allow to die, feed and house those without the means to fend for
>> themselves and, yes, allow the right of a full and happy family life - even
>> as parents in some cases - to those who, for reasons that are nobody's business
>> but their own, prefer to do that with someone of the same sex.
>>
Why is that a good thing ? Lots of people are asking questions, which is good, but no one is offering any answers. Does that make it the right thing ?
|
>>How many gay couples have successfully, naturally (without a science lab and team), procreated
Millions.
Gay women sometimes start their lives with male partners, gay men sometimes with women.
Gay women sometimes use a turkey-baster and consensual male friend to help out (not exactly a science lab).
I've seen plenty of hetero families with IVF created children (and a tiny number of lesbian parents), and I can't say that makes them less relevant in the parenting stakes (or marriage to that matter).
I think the argument that having a baby is simply an item on a list for the super-rich is grossly demeaning to these people. Unless of course you know them personally and can vouch for them being shallow want-it-alls.
|
|
I use a turkey baster for removing petrol out of my lawnmower at the end of the season. I had never thought of using one for anything else. I wonder if turkey basters actually get used as turkey basters?
|
>>I use a turkey baster for removing petrol out of my lawnmower at the end of the season.
Odd that: I use a PELA pump to baste my turkeys.
|
>> I think the argument that having a baby is simply an item on a list
>> for the super-rich is grossly demeaning to these people. Unless of course you know them
>> personally and can vouch for them being shallow want-it-alls.
>>
Pick and chose all you want.
I never said having children was within the realm of the rich and fabulous.
|
Gonna have to parrot WdB.
Eh?
|
>> Given that, as far as I know, there's still a large number of children in
>> care that need permanent homes,
correct
>> There's also a large number of gay couples (of both genders) that use surrogacy;
There are even more non gay couples that use it. Either way while there are large numbers of children that need homes, surrogacy should be illegal, gay couples or no.
|
Bono is delighted
He can finally marry himself
|
>> while there are large numbers of children that need homes, surrogacy should be illegal, gay couples or no.
Yes, almost. "Discouraged' though, not 'illegal'.
What a can of worms this has turned out to be. It's true that the world is overflowing with deprived, persecuted, miserable children. the progeny of irresponsible swine who don't give a damn. They are amazingly resilient and it's heartbreaking to see them suffering and being so often defeated, beaten down and corrupted.
|
|
And fostering/adopting such children is very hard work. Much harder than a kid one brings up in a loving environment from the off. People who can do that have my admiration, not everyone can.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 25 May 15 at 09:35
|
The issue of gay marriage and dislike of the gay culture has been conflated to be a politically charged football match, with opposing parties becoming vociferous, overbearing , bullying and attributing evil intentions to honestly held opinions.
Personally I hold no brief for either view - "gay good" or "gay bad".
Not my business.
I have known nice gays and not nice gays, as in all walks of life - in fact my daughter's eldest stepson has just come out as gay and he remains the obnoxious, ungrateful bar-steward he always was!
Some off the nicest people I know - particularly in the antiques trade, were and are, gay.
|
"Personally I hold no brief for either view - "gay good" or "gay bad".
Not my business."
I think it's everyone's business to support tolerance.
Not supporting the view that "gay is good" or "gay is bad" is equivocating and irrelevant.
|
IMO everyone does support tolerance, but people decide for themselves what they are prepared to tolerate and what they are not, and where the line is drawn. That's just a matter of people being different.
Re your last para I took Roger's post as meaning he didn't have a particularly strong view either way and I see no reason to find fault with that.
|
"I took Roger's post as meaning he didn't have a particularly strong view either way and I see no reason to find fault with that."
Of course but, if Roger says something - anything, however innocuous - someone has to take issue with it; it's a tradition on here ;-)
Sometimes, I suspect, we say things to draw the attention of the resident sniffers, antis, and permanently offended lefties. It's naughty, I know.
|
"... if Roger says something - anything, however innocuous - someone has to take issue with it..."
Don't put me in that camp. I couldn't care less who Roger is, or what he's put in the past, or what he's supposed to stand for.
"Sometimes, I suspect, we say things to draw the attention of the resident sniffers, antis, and permanently offended lefties. It's naughty, I know."
Not sure of that's about me or other people's reactions.
I wanted to point out that standing to one side, saying that these things don't concern me and so on is a bit like being prepared to accept whatever comes in the way of intolerance. If the Irish had voted no to gay marriage and someone said, "Oh, that's all right, then" - as Roger might have done, to judge from his comment - I would say that is NOT okay.
|
What Roger actually said was that he held no brief. That suggests to me that he is disinterested (rather than uninterested), which is fair enough.
I am not homosexual, nor a member of any related campaigning organisation, nor does the matter directly affect anyone I have a close connection with as far as I know. Therefore I would say I am disinterested, i.e. it is not my business either. I hold no brief.
I still think that the change is a good thing. Maybe Roger does too, I don't know.
UKIP members' vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills are sometimes ahead of those of their critics. Some of these old duffers do crosswords.
The annoying Godfrey Bloom was wrongly vilified for calling a woman a slut, in jest, after she said she never cleaned behind the fridge, presumably first by someone who knew only one definition of the word.
slut:
noun
1.
a woman who has many casual sexual partners.
synonyms: promiscuous woman
2.
dated
a woman with low standards of cleanliness.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 25 May 15 at 15:29
|
". If the Irish had voted no to gay marriage and someone said, "Oh, that's all right, then" - as Roger might have done, to judge from his comment - I would say that is NOT okay"
...which sounds a little intolerant to me... :-). Not everyone voted Yes you know. By quite a long way. Just more voted Yes than No.
|
Quite. There's such a thing as religious tolerance too, and some of those people (the ones who have been spouting the opposite for 2,000 years) might need a bit of time to take it in:)
I was quite surprised TBH. It could be a sea change in peoples' attitude to the Church there, probably generational. Not too long since Irish Catholics (at least a few I knew) were well accustomed to being dictated to by the priest on things like this.
|
"It could be a sea change in peoples' attitude to the Church there, probably generational"
I think the biggest surprise of this referendum, Manatee, is that only one constituency in the entire country (Laois-Roscommon, in the midlands, fwiw) returned a majority 'no' vote.
That suggests voters of all ages and political leanings turned out to vote 'yes' - and that shows a significant change in attitude among older voters.
Interestingly, there was a second referendum on the same day, to reduce the age at which one could run as a presidential candidate from 35 to 21, and that was heavily defeated. so its not as if only the spring chickens came out to cast their ballots!
|
Its strange though, and quite a big thing, to vote no. I assume it must be mostly a religious objection.
Essentially voting no is "I don't want to do it and I want other people who do to be stopped".
Now, I quite understand why someone does not want to have a gay marriage themselves. I can even understand why they might be uncomfortable with the idea.
But to want a law passed or maintained to stop someone else doing something which has no bearing upon your life, nor represents harm since it is between consulting adults. Why?
So whilst I am not much interested in gay marriage itself, I do think it important that gay people should have the freedom to be married if they wish.
Mind you, I also believe a particular church or religion should be able to refuse to marry them if it is against their belief system.
Its making laws about it that's wrong.
|
Good post.
I've little doubt that the scandals concerning the Catholic Church and children, and a growing realisation of the immense harm wreaked by the repressive attitudes of that Church, played a part in securing a yes vote in the referendum.
I read my James Joyce.
|
>> I read my James Joyce.
Ah yes, poor Stephen Daedalus, priests and nuns and all that.
I recall with emphatic lack of pride a couple of bouncy rubbery Dublin chicks back in the day, kind-hearted enough but a bit impatient and numbly adult for such as myself in those days, longish ago npw.
Mind you not everyone admits that sort of thing. But I aim to please... no one in their right mind could call it showing off.
|
Paddy and Murphy walk into a bar.
Holding each others hand.
|
>> no one in their right mind could call it showing off.
But I could show off if the spirit moved me. So could most people though. It's awful.
Dublin which I know a bit upmarket and down is in fact a toughish but kindly place... another damn privilege or two.
|
>>
>> Its making laws about it that's wrong.
>>
But it's the very law that the advocates want to change. It's inconsistent on the one hand saying it's a private matter for consenting adults and the rules of whatever religion they want to marry under, and on the other, that it ought to be enshrined in the law of the land.
If it's to do with the law, then it automatically concerns everybody else - that's what laws are for.
|
Gay marriage - Lygonos
