Friday, May 22, 2015

Tagged under: ,

A Turd In The Cake Mix

Larry Hughes gives his take on the Ashers cake case and what he terms the homosexual  equality agenda. Larry Hughes is a history and politics enthusiast. 

The media saturation in recent times concerning the Asher’s court case ruling combined with recent television debates has brought into sharp focus the referendum on same sex marriage. The yes campaign has received the endorsement of the party leadership of all the main parties. After recent developments however there appears to be a growing concern that what is being presented as a civil rights and equality issue may in fact be just the beginning of a much greater onslaught by the homosexual equality agenda.


Perhaps the conduct and attitude of the yes campaigners is in itself reason for the vast majority of people in our society to take a step back and consider what we are being asked to approve of on a pretext of decency and sentimentality to a minority pressure group. A group which itself has shown almost zero respect or consideration for anyone else’s feelings and values. It is a campaign that very much tells us if we are not with them we are against them. What exactly is going on behind the homosexual agenda disguised in a cloak of modernity and trendy liberalism and what sort of Pandora’s Box might a yes vote open up?

It is difficult to deny anyone the right to be happy or to love another human being. Gender or sexual preference is an irrelevance on this score and rightly so. Same sex marriage is unobjectionable on face value. Why shouldn’t homosexuals be as legally miserable as the rest of us? It is instinctive and humane to be drawn to the positivity and simplicity of this message. The reality is though that in recent televised debates some light was shed upon a homosexual agenda regarding the desire to adopt children and the ‘right’ to have a family. It has been stated that it was identified that legal status in marriage for homosexuals would be required as a first step in order to progress on this front. Others have labelled this a red herring and a scare tactic by the no campaigners. It has raised the issue of the desirability for legal clarity on the adoption and family law area in advance of the referendum taking place. Seemingly several attempts were made to amend the referendum legislation in this regard but were summarily rejected. Why?

All the political leaderships have jumped on the same sex marriage bandwagon as the trendy and just option. It is difficult to judge if this is from political opportunism and the desire to be seen as trendy by career politicians with no real interest in anything but the next vote, or from a fear of the PC brigade. The yes campaign on closer scrutiny has been a negative and quite rude one. If you are not in support of homosexual same sex marriage and even worse have the audacity to raise questions regarding the issue then you are ‘archaic’ and a dinosaur living in denial of the modern new trendy and cool world. Not a good approach when votes are required. If they are so rude now what will they be like after a yes vote? Let us just take a look at this. It is surely about time that someone did so.

I am using the term homosexual agenda here rather than ‘gay’ until someone can perhaps enlighten me as to why two grown men engaging in anal intercourse is something to be celebrated by the rest of society as ‘gay’. Not to mention, where and when exactly did the rainbow become the designated emblem and property of the homosexual minority? Something disturbing in the cake debacle is that a couple of kiddie’s television characters were used to advance a homosexual agenda. No one seems to feel able or confident enough to raise such questions for fear of the wrath of the ‘not so gay’ homosexual community and liberal brigade raining fire and brimstone upon their heads. 

Arguments have been made for and against the judgement in the Asher’s court case. With the verdict in their favour the homosexual campaigners are very forthright in their support of the law and haven’t missed an opportunity to cite the ‘law’ now in their favour. Others may find the saying the ‘law is an ass’ particularly apt in this case. The bigger picture is that if this is an indication of what a favourable verdict will bring on a cake icing issue then perish the thought of what will happen once homosexual marriage is given equality under family law. Red herring indeed!

For some time now homosexuality has had its agenda forced into everyone else’s lives. It is impossible to watch a television programme or a film these days without being exposed to homosexuality. It appears that there is a written rule somewhere that all media content has to include a compulsory homosexual component. East-Enders at 2pm on a Sunday afternoon and there they are, the two oiled up homosexual men going at it full pelt. All the soaps now have the obligatory homosexual relationship being forced into our living rooms. We have no choice but to either watch it or switch channel.

The human rights of homosexuals now take precedence over the vast majority of people’s right to personal feelings or values. There is no sanctuary from the homosexual onslaught in our society. Get a room and get out of our faces simply doesn’t seem to apply. We have no right to be offended or repulsed. We must accept homosexuality and tell our children who are subjected to it without our consent through almost every TV show broadcast these days that it is in fact natural. If we don’t we are uncool and archaic. Who are these people exactly? They are determined to deprive other people of their values whilst pushing their sexual preference and orientation in everyone else’s face relentlessly. What kind of society do they envisage creating for the majority of us in the coming decades?

People need to take a step back and not let the natural tendency towards decency and fair play be cynically manipulated by a long running homosexual rights agenda into voting through legislation on impulse. The rights and values of the majority are being trampled upon at every turn and it will be open season in the family law courts if a yes vote is secured. The cake case has whetted the appetite for the legal avenue.

Society has boundaries and common sense has a place in society also. The homosexual who placed the order at Ashers to my mind did so deliberately to get the reaction he did and then begin the legal case and gain publicity. I don’t care what some magistrate with a PC phobia said. I believe otherwise and I don’t need anyone’s permission to do so. If I walked into a bar on the Shankill Rd in my Celtic shirt I know what would be the likely outcome, and I’d deserve it too. A polite refusal would be a blessing! But reality doesn’t apply in the liberal homosexual new world order, where two men engaging in anal intercourse CAN result in children and a family. As for our politicians advice; were these not the same ever-present ‘faeces’ in the Dail who were telling us to get on the property ladder ASAP before we missed the boat and then bailed out the bankers at the people’s expense? Be careful what you wish for, and even more careful what you vote for!

220 comments :

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
John McGirr said...

This is an exceptional and a courageous article, Larry, that deserves to be read far and wide and widely considered.

It is spot on in every matter it raises and it dares to speak out where we are being bullied into silence.

Best of all, it relies on solid human reason and good sense, without having recourse to God or Bible.

Congratulations, Larry.

Get out there and VOTE NO!

sean bres said...

Interesting post Larry, maith thu...

AM said...

We could as easily have talked about the heterosexual agenda or the clerical agenda or whatever agenda. The same type of argument advanced here has been used by those with rights to stop them being extended to those without them: to black people, to women.

This is an anti-gay article but at least it doesn't masquerade as anything else.

Abhorrent as argument is, Larry wrote it at our request to widen the discussion and did not throw it in merely to annoy the equality lobby of which I am one.

The Yes vote in my view will win comfortably and this time five years it will be as contentious an issue as divorce - in other words, not an issue. The Church will have been pushed back even further, as it has on every previous issue, the world will not have imploded.

This is a well written piece but will be rendered useless now that McGirr has backed it LOL.

How are you John?

larry hughes said...

Mackers

'abhorrent' a tad strong, but perfectly in keeping with the inability of the yes 'equality' campaign's inability to countenance dissent and typical of the attitude offered to your opponents on this issue. If the vote is lost it will be due to a combination of hubris and this attitude. Fingers crossed!

Depending upon how adoption issues develop after your anticipated success, society may well move on as you anticipate. Once same sex couples start pushing buggies about towns and shopping malls in numbers, I suspect regular families will increasingly fall back on traditional virtues and the churches will reclaim a lot of lapsed sheep.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

whatever crimes Larry is guilty of, being a Christian is not one of them! He is no more a Christian than I am.

Larry,

abhorrent is a pretty relaxed way to describe views that are obnoxious. But hey, you are allowed to hold them. Nor is the equality campaign unable to deal with dissent - you were invited to express your views, did so, and not one iota were you asked to change.

I think abhorrent is a good way to describe a position that is a robust defence of rights for ourselves but for denying them to others. Nothing wrong with finding something abhorrent. You seem to find the gay position abhorrent - so what?

Wolfsbane said...

Larry - a fine, clear-thinking, and as John McGirr says, 'an exceptional and a courageous article that deserves to be read far and wide and widely considered'.

I'm at least going to post it on my FB wall!

AM said...

Not a chance of this being reversed unless there is some apocalypse and we are all forced back to the year dot. There is as much chance of the Church reclaiming its power as there is of you riding me. And if you ride me I'll be the bishop

AM said...

it is a brave article - no doubt about that. He was the only one daft enough to write it for us LOL. Seriously, as wrong as I find it, I always admire the person who will at least stand up for something and stand over it. Which is why I think your stance was also brave Wolfsbane, you waived the anonymity of the comment section.

As much as I dislike the arguments here, yes of course they deserve to be read widely. I hope TPQ plays a role in facilitating that reading.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

I would need a stepladder and you tranquilised to 'ride' you. not to mention the obligatory blindfold and 3 days on the drink for me. As for loving still you tomorrow, not that fond of you just now lol.

larry hughes said...

Seriously though. It is the Trojan horse aimed at the 'right' to adopt that bothers me. I may have been a slow learner and at 52 this year still not that sharp with peoples true intent. But the rainbow warriors of this world do not instil confidence regarding the already unwanted and vulnerable child's welfare and best interest. No more than social services to date in many cases and they certainly don't need the added pressure of same sex storm troopers looking for kids of their 'own' with the PC brigade backing them up. I think 'trendies and freaks' want to screw a society they hate and throw it clean out with the bathwater. What next, a social middle east result?

Wolfsbane,

adding my article to your FB is a kind complement. Thank you for the gesture.

DaithiD said...

Larry , good article. Whilst I don’t agree with the central issue, the inference of the adoption aspect is something I have still resolve in my head. I think children should have exposure to both sexes to learn from. From my own experience of losing a father before I hit puberty, and having older brothers all moved out of the house, I was essentially raised by women. Whilst there was always older males I could ask questions to, sometimes we cant form the words correctly to put across what we want to know, Im pretty sure part of a childs intuition develops on simple wordless, observation. That said my missus really loves having a slightly effeminate partner, so its not absolutely bad, just a difference all the love I was given couldn’t fix.

AM said...

Larry a PC rule of thumb that is not politically correct but politically clever is this: when overwhelmed by the detail or confused for whatever reason, just vote against what the Church votes for. You will find it a time honoured recipe for doing the right thing. Even if lazy, you will find it leaves you right much more often than it leaves you wrong.

Gay couples should have no more rights to adopt children than straight couples - the rights of the child must be paramount, something all too often ignored by a large section of the No camp. It for some reason has suddenly discovered that the child is important and not something that the bishop can intimidate into silence.

We need to give proper consideration to every reason, other than religious ones, that may be stated against the case for gay marriage. PC arguments should not be allowed to trump reasonable arguments. Once they introduce Jesus, my fingers go into the ears. I wanted to hear the Ashers side of their argument but once he talked Jesus I was outta there pretty quick. May as well have told me the unicorn is at his side.

Fionnuala Perry said...

The amount of turds flushed away by the Catholic Church probably gave rise to the water crisis.

What a bunch of bloody hypocrites! In the midst of the stench of sexual abuse, the demoralisation of women, evictions, theft and corruption, the Catholic Church takes to the pulpit and the papers to guard against gay marriage.

Not on their own of course, our own zealous creationists were out in full force, adding clauses to clauses.

Tiring shite the lot of it. People are either equal under the law or they're not.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

I think vulnerable kids have suffered so much in Irish society and unfortunately at the hands of our clergy which stunned and shamed us all to the core. Even those angry little non church going Celtic fans amongst us were ashamed by the revelations. Let down doesn't come close!

But rainbow warriors with a chip or hatred of religion (like yourself?) is hardly the remedy. DaithiD is closer to the needs and worth a listen to I believe than political and sexual opportunists.

AM said...

Larry,

many religious people are voting yes. As much as I shun religion I don't believe in treating the religious unfairly. And when they are treated unfairly I'll bat at the crease for them as in the Jim Wells case.

The real opportunists are those who never miss an opportunity to deny an equality opportunity to those they think are children of a lesser god.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

children of a lesser God. Leave the oirish cancer out of this lol.

Like immigration and benefits and every other legislation for the general good, slime balls will avail of it. Rainbow warriors collect a lot of social questionables to their demos. Perish the thought what awaits kiddies now when this door is battering rammed through. More safeguards, not less required.

As for marriage, send them to Vagas in the Hills and sanctify them. But give kids a break.

https://youtu.be/dL_PXBt85rY

come see Elvis.

Henry JoY said...

Fair play Larry for sharing your thoughts. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We'll have to respect the democratic wishes too.

Another loosening of the chains.
HJ

mcclafferty32 said...

Larry. Your article is honest and straight forward. Thanks for the courage to tell it like it is.

John McGirr said...

Nothing that you have raised has been countered, Larry, or even addressed.

There is a lot of hatred of the Church. Funny as it all involves alleged homosexual behaviour, that is being sanctified.

This whole question has nothing to do with religion. The cowards among the hierarchy have disgraced themselves so much that they have ruled themselves out of the right to give a view. Besides they are mostly homosexuals themselves so inclined to support this garbage.

Not how no one has even attempted to address what you wrote. Just platitudes about opposing God, lol.

Doing well, Anthony. Sorry to see that there is the same old bitterness here. There is a whole world out there, you know. Where people don't hate God and all His works. There are even people out there who don't revolve every thought of their day about something they claim not to believe in.

Personally I think that Larry has spoken more sense here that the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church, so hated here. And, it has NOTHING to do with religion. So those who backed the destruction of marriage out of spite have really messed up.

AM said...

John,

nice to hear from you again in all your religious insanity LOL. Other than assuming you were pursuing your usual mad pursuits I hadn't heard of you in a while. But there was always space for you and Brother Larry here. I feel sorry for Larry. After enticing him into writing the piece - and him happy at home minding his own business, caring for the dogs and having a beer - he put a lot of effort in only to find you came in and supported him. Now he s really done for LOL.

In all seriousness John, marriage is not destroyed, merely extended (presuming I have called the result right). But sure you could all keep yourselves busy by going back to calling for condoms to be banned under some campaign banner like Saving Dicks from Rubberisation. Just think of all the dicks that would gather to support that. But I do think that title should maybe be kept in waiting for the time when the hierarchy you dislike are about to implode. A campaign could be fought on behalf of the bishops Save Our Dicks.

I know we are supposed to be having a serious discussion around all of this but they haven't banned humour yet.

Good luck John - nice to see you about



AM said...

Larry,

kids can be attacked by anyone. Big Wells tried the rubbish on pretending it was otherwise and got rubbished for it. There is noting wrong with applying equal voting rights to Black people, Catholics, youth and women, Nor marriage rights either. It is a broadening out of protections and rights. If children are in danger as a result of it, then rights of protection must be afforded to them.

AM said...

Helen, this is the bone of contention. A brave piece for sure but he told it like it isn't.

AM said...

Cardinal in Britain prays for Irish 'No' vote in marriage referendum Why does he not sacrifice a goat and hope to get the same result?

larry hughes said...

Marriage is ok. When the queer tsunami hits the law courts demanding a child don't tell me then it was a simple 'marriage' referendum. When that happens and it will, SHAME on you. Yes campaigners no better than SF with your 40 faces.

AM said...

is there really 40 bishops?

AM said...

Larry,

children cannot be handed out willy-nilly like they once were to religious orders who proceeded to abuse them regardless of who demands children. The problem of children being abused after adoption is a general one which will only end when adoption ends but no one is going to suggest that because of how deleterious it will be. This guy Geoffrey Briggs was a religious missionary, married to a woman, not a man.

larry hughes said...

Nice wee gay tender moment. Familiar cake at the bottom too lol. PRICELESS.

https://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/gay-lovers-discovery-they-re-actually-half-brothers-160031997.html?vp=1

you need to lose your chip with religion. Take up fishing or something, clear your head. Stop using rainbow warriors and the tiny minority of society's freaks to bash other peoples faith. I assume you are not a bum-chum, so why hitch your wee pony to the freak show?

AM said...

Now you sound like the people you attack - which suits my perspective brilliantly.

I think anybody reading this will come to the view that whatever the merits of the respective arguments the freaks are with you on this one, the type that hang around women's health clinics waving rosary beads.

Other people's faith means nothing to me in terms of meriting respect. It is only opinion after all and opinion has no right to be respected. Just as you don't respect the opinion of the gay equality people. I do of course respect the right of people to hold their opinion, that includes you too. That's why you were invited to write. I don't have to respect what you write. You can't give me one reason why I should. Nor do you have to respect what I write.

Scientology, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism - all the same to me - gunk.

Would you respect the opinion of somebody who told you not to wear a condom or guzzle your six pack because the unicorn told him you couldn't? Why should it be different when they claim some zombie told them? I imagine the answer they would get.

Today will demonstrate who is the majority. May reason win and prejudice lose.

AM said...

Tallies suggest a Yes victory

AM said...

Dublin tallies suggest not one box suggesting a No victory. Landslide Yes in some areas but in the older constituencies of the city it is coming in as close to 50-50.

AM said...

Mayo and Galway, Yes well in front.

larry hughes said...

Vincent Brown on TV3 with a big weird looking trannie bringing the results as they come in. Be sure and tune in and see the future you voted for.

AM said...

Donegal 55 Yes 45 No

Sligo-Leitrim 60 Yes 40 No

No Campaigner David Quinn has tweeted congratulations to Yes side. Predictions of a very comfortable victory to yes side. Estimations are that only three constituencies will Vote No - St Peter's, St Pauls, And St Patricks LOL.

The young people have made a big difference here and they are the future. There is hope yet.

AM said...

Larry, haven't seen it but I guess I would prefer voting for that future than one where those who covered up the crimes of Brendan Smith held sway.

Reason rather than prejudice has won today. It is great to sit here and watch my 9 year old cheering for the Victory. He doesn't understand it but I suppose these wee things give more personal joy than the rest of it. The 14 year old campaigned for it and is so pleased.

larry hughes said...

Looks like a gay-day. They can all now get back on the plane and return to their global gay communities. Clouds and silver lining.

AM said...

Looks like a 2-1 victory.

AM said...

A gay day rather than a grey day indeed Larry. Now it is time to move on and give proper consideration to the argument about the benefits to the child of having a mother and father in their lives.

AM said...

I see god just ignored the prayers of the idiot cardinal of Britain - told you, he should have sacrificed a goat. God likes goats.

larry hughes said...

Focus will now be directed towards adoption. Expect that is the next target for the queer tsunami. It will be the next battleground. The gay cheer wont have died down before we have some camp boyo declaring publicly he has gone into labour.

larry hughes said...

I wonder is wolfsbane a Rangers supporter? Might join him for a match. I desperately need to get some rationale back in my life quickly today. Hibs v Rangers on today. Thank GOD.

AM said...

It is so uplifting to see those young people flying in from around the world to make a vote for equality. That they are so determined to unshackle the country from the malign effects of the clerics is deeply moving. And it is great to see the religious right from the US slapped down as they tried to push things their way. An exceptionally dangerous outfit.

Great result. It adds to the freedoms won through earlier referenda. I imagine the type of influence at play in the No campaign didn't want us to have divorce or contraception either.

AM said...

No he isn't - I know he is a believer but who could believe in Rangers? LOL

AM said...

try sucking lemons Larry - you'll sound less bitter. I am going to suck a whiskey bottle later, not even to celebrate, just to relax

larry hughes said...

Did you snag your tights there Mackers? Them oul ladders are a bad look. News coming in from the Longford count, a yes campaigner said his waters broke due to the excitement of being legally entitled to marry his bent partner lol.

Seriously though, marriage isn't the issue, if it was simply that I'd have voted yes instead of not bothering to vote at all. My concern is adoption and I expect to be proven correct. I don't think I will have long to wait either.

Get that whiskey into you, it makes you easier tolerated. lol

AM said...

As Mary Lou McDonald has just said gay and lesbian citizens are now equal in the eyes of the law - what could possibly be wrong with that? An as she said the best interests of the child are what will determine what happens next. It will be very important that the more prudent voices in the No camp make the case for the child and not for the clerics' view of the child. A child needs a parent. It does not need a priest.

AM said...

My tights are looking lovely on me. But that white collar around your neck is bulging a bit LOL.

The very notion of a rascal like yourself in the trench with the bishops spewing Latin curses on the gays is splitting my sides here!

Enough for the day - heading out here to walk the priest, sorry the dog, LOL

larry hughes said...

Is your dog a queer? Now that those gaybos have their rights I hope they stop their lewd sexual antics in peoples faces and cop themselves on. Better if they suck the faeces and privates off each other in the house rather than deliberately setting out to upset normal decent people.

AM said...

Larry,

it seems your hatred rather than your reason is shining through which undermines the strength of your original argument. But on the principle of non intervention when an opponent is defeating himself I'll leave you to it.

larry hughes said...

End of the world is nigh...
we have Sodom and begorrah

Wolfsbane said...

It seems the majority of the people of the Republic have led the world in endorsing Gay Marriage. That's a pity - but people deserve what the vote for. Now we wait to see if larry's take was correct. Like him, I suspect it won't be long before we find out.

Why did the Yes vote prevail? Probably a mixture of disgust and distrust of the Catholic Church's record, and believing that it was really about equality for gays.

Anthony had a rule of thumb: if the Catholic Church is against it, vote the other way. I appreciate the abuse that generated that - but here's another rule of thumb: if most of the leaders/rulers and the media are agreed, suspect you are being suckered into their agenda.

Mary Marscal said...

@ Larry it was a good read… Don’t ruin it with crass ragings. My sis in London is a lesbian – guess she will be pleased for Ireland going the full gaydar… It is inevitable – what is going on worldwide – agendas – fragmenting hetero family unit, eugenics, transhumanism, transgendering etc The RCC - there were many priests & nuns in homosexual or lesbian relationships. They can all come out of the closets now NB it was not just the RCC. It is in other Christian religions and non Christian religions and secular society… It’s just part of the human condition … The normalisation process is in full swing now.

I got tired of witnessing the suffering on lesbians, homosexuals & trannies in my youth. Some of them were/are my friends. As a Christian I don’t believe it is how God made us to be & never hide my belief from friends nor my sis. However to marginalize and direct discrimination at gays is NOT ON. And in that respect I think one cannot deny them the right to be in a relationship – marriage legally. Doesn’t mean one has to agree with lifestyle and such. I have friends who think I am as mad as a bag of snakes for being a Christian – but you know live n let live is how it rolls in life. I don’t preach at them & they don’t preach at me their atheist or sexuality status & so forth…

Agree with you that the gay agenda is sometimes too full on. I was recently at a protest for indigenous (Aboriginal Australian) rights & the rainbow flags & such were on overload. This really pisses me off as it is piggybacking onto a completely separate cause & trying to identify with sanitized genocide as part of their suffering. There is a distinct difference imo & I found it insulting.

Wonder if there will be an increase in prolapsed rectums statistics in Ireland in the decades ahead. Health tips for lesbians if you have multiple partners Use dam as you can transmit sti's through oral sex.
For males Always use condom & lube for anal sex as condom may break.

JOKERMAN by Bob Dylan (he was prophetic & got there decades ago)

‘You’re going to Sodom and Gomorrah
But what do you care?
Ain’t nobody there would want to marry your sister
Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame
Preacherman seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain
Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks
Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain
False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin
Only a matter of time 'til the night comes stepping in’

Link for full song Dunno how to embed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XSvsFgvWr0

Mary Marscal said...

@ John McGirr I think all the established Christian religious churches & such are cesspits for hypocrisy re sexuality. My recent foray into Orthodox Christian Church lasted 5 months – I discovered (to my initial disbelief) lots going on under the veneer of extreme holiness & it was just like if not worse than the RCC. The Orthodox demand a lot from you - fasting, attendance of tons of services. I got so confused re the saints & stuff. However I soon discovered hidden but active homosexuality seems to be the order of the day whilst they preach against it!! Fkn Pharisees is what they are & of course I told 'em. I mean why not be honest & real about who and what you are.
A friend said I was insane for even bothering going to church and is right. I know not many will understand this (only survivors could understand my wacked logic) I wanted to test out my ability to be around icons and symbolism reminiscent of Catholicism to de-traumatise myself from the past. It backfired badly.

After some truly spectacular raging shouting sessions at the priest & head honcho about hypocrisy I went home & smashed the icon the priest made me. Will I go to hell Nah. I just exited it.

AM said...

Wolsfbane,

Ireland, or at least this part of it, is to be praised for its decision.

That is a rule of thumb which is not as good a guide for the following reason: the leaderships are watching their base and know that public sentiment is with the Yes camp. You are right in this respect: it does not mean they are genuine. But they have taken a stand on progressive issues - telling the Vatican to clear off for example. So the agenda you speak of can be set by the public and not the politicians.

The bishops, on the other hand, on these issues have argued against everything progressive.

I have no objection in principle to gay parents adopting children or black parents adopting white children. I have no objection to Christian missionaries adopting children regardless of what Briggs did. But the interests of the child must always come first. And the challenge for us is how best to make that decision. If gay couples are to be prohibited I would like to hear a good reason for it. In the course of the decision making process we should listen to as wide a range of opinion as possible. What I will not be listening to is somebody telling me his/her religion tells them it is right to prohibit same sex parenting.

I will listen to religious people making rational arguments and if they persuade me, I will side with them. If they wish to quote child psychologist X that it would be wrong, I will listen to that. If they tell me Jesus would not approve they can go and screw themselves.

I would say that many of those young people who came out to extend rights to more people would challenge any outcome that would be harmful to children. There is no reason I can think of for this society to succumb to legislation that would lead to child abuse than it would succumb to the reestablishment of Church abuse of children.

larry hughes said...

Wolfsbane

RTE1 had David Norris and an American lesbian senator on outside Dublin Castle and the lezer proposed to her wife to get married again in Ireland. Norris said he'd be the flower girl.

The lezer mentioned the crowd behind them and said MANY of these people will soon be raising children of their own. 20 minutes in and the vote not even officially announced.

The lezers wife (American) also used to be a Catholic nun. At least now we know where she got her deviance from.

Watch out for men sucking the throat out of each other in every bar near you. And watch for them getting the shock of their lives.

A vile American tranny was on RTE too. Was this an American queer event? Des Bishop now on as well.

Jesus wept.

Niggers gays and Jews.....untouchable-unmentionable.

larry hughes said...

Mary

Don't instruct, it is the relentless 'in our faces' approach that brings the terse comments in response. Strangers on facebook have deluged me and others with unwanted personal messages reporting us at times and insisting posts get removed, unsuccessfully.

The gays are vile towards others and if they are in peoples faces now in public they deserve what they get like any one else.

A 4 per-cent freak-show are now dictating in this nation. Half of them flown in from every deviant hovel abroad.

AM said...

it is uncomfortable to watch somebody self destruct but so be it

AM said...

It is a huge victory - Roscommon/Leitrim alone voting No.

It should be a day to rejoice but not one to gloat.

AM said...

Interesting comment by Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, that the Church now faces a reality check in terms of how it relates to young people.

larry hughes said...

The door has been opened to social destruction. Trannies with buggies in no time.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony, what unbelievers do with God's law is up to them - Christians can only point it out.

But often God's law concurs with what a secularist sees is the reality, and such is the case with the Ashers cake controversy. God forbids us from promoting the sin of homosexuality, so the bakers refused to do the 'Support Gay Marriage' slogan on the cake. But both Christians and many secular folk see the denial of freedom of conscience involved in the judge's verdict.

Christians are opposed to Gay Marriage because it is against God's law. But both they and many secularists see the danger of changing the Irish constitution's definition of marriage - that it will give a child no right to a mother.

If two men are married in exactly the same sense as a man and woman, then their right to a child that is up for adoption or surrogacy will be equal to that of a heterosexual couple. The courts will not be able to give preference to a mother and father unit, for a father and father unit has been made equal by today's vote.

As you say, the interests of the child should come first. That has meant the preferred family unit included a father and mother. Not after today.





Wolfsbane said...

On a lighter note:
AM said:
'whatever crimes Larry is guilty of, being a Christian is not one of them! He is no more a Christian than I am.'

Common sense and acuity of thought are common graces, given by God to many believers and unbelievers alike. Good to hear such from Larry and John.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

god's law means nothing to me. Nor does the law of the unicorn.

Children will not be denied the right to a mother under the new regime; that stays as it was. Motherhood is not being outlawed. if anything changes they will be entitled to a greater choice of parentage that does not restrict them to a mother. It might permit them to be children of a same sex marriage. But a child should no more be forced into that then they should be forced into a different sex marriage.

If it can be shown that a child will be harmed as a result of being adopted by same sex parents, then it must be opposed and challenged. But we can't oppose it because somebody thinks a unicorn might not approve, or it is in a bible, a Koran or a Ludlum book.

I am as prejudiced as the next person - but I try to overcome it. If my daughter brings a girlfriend home I would be alright with it. If she brought a Mormon boyfriend home my nose would be out of joint if only because I might have to listen to the nut spew religion at me. But I'd get over it pretty quickly if he talked soccer and avoided polygamy.

Let people live their lives, don't practice your religion on them, practice it on yourself.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

Larry always has that redeeming feature of liking the devil's buttermilk.

God bless the devil for his wonderful creativity.

Henry JoY said...

Larry, Wolfie et al

Would I be right to summarise it as a bummer result, as far as you guys are concerned?

Peter said...

Larry

Your not so subtle homophobia weakens from your argument. The reason many "rainbow warriors" are so fervently liberal is that we have seen young gay people have breakdowns and commit suicide because they were told what they were was "unnatural". Who decides that? The RCC? How unnatural are they? It cheers my heart to see the evil empire of superstitious bollix losing its grip. If only the new earth nutters in the north would go the same way.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
‘god's law means nothing to me. Nor does the law of the unicorn.’

I never suggested they did. I only explained why Christians took their position and how they and non-Christians went on to agree on further aspects of the issues. For example, Immorality + the Threat to Freedom of Conscience motivates the believer; the Threat to Freedom of Conscience is the concern for the unbeliever (Ashers case). Immorality + Threat to the Rights of Children to a Mother & Father Family motivates the believer; the Threat to the Rights of Children to a Mother & Father Family motivates the unbeliever (Gay Marriage).

‘Children will not be denied the right to a mother under the new regime; that stays as it was. Motherhood is not being outlawed.’

I did not say motherhood would be outlawed – just that there will be no right to it. A family of two fathers will have equal call on adoption/surrogacy.

‘ if anything changes they will be entitled to a greater choice of parentage that does not restrict them to a mother. It might permit them to be children of a same sex marriage. But a child should no more be forced into that then they should be forced into a different sex marriage. ‘

The child gets no choice! The State decides. Now they MUST decide without respect to mother and father being the ideal family unit. Father and father units have been put on an equal footing. That is, the child has had its right to a mother removed – the State may give them a mother, but must treat the prospective father-father unit as equally desirable as a mother-father unit.

‘If it can be shown that a child will be harmed as a result of being adopted by same sex parents, then it must be opposed and challenged.’

How can an absence of a mother be seen as harmful, or even less desirable, since the man-man marriage today has been equalised with the woman-man marriage? Who is going to suggest a gay unit is less desirable than a heterosexual one? It will require a new referendum.

‘But we can't oppose it because somebody thinks a unicorn might not approve, or it is in a bible, a Koran or a Ludlum book.’

OK, no problem with that. Our secular citizens need materialist facts. Maybe I’m just a country-boy, but I always thought even when I was an unbeliever that a mom and dad would be better than two dads. Sort of a common sense given, an expression of nature even. Now I’m told tow das are equal to a mom and a dad.

‘I am as prejudiced as the next person - but I try to overcome it. If my daughter brings a girlfriend home I would be alright with it. If she brought a Mormon boyfriend home my nose would be out of joint if only because I might have to listen to the nut spew religion at me. But I'd get over it pretty quickly if he talked soccer and avoided polygamy.’

You disapprove of polygamy!!! Five people in love with one man or woman, maybe even with each other, surely deserve to be happy and live as equal citizens – if today’s vote means anything.

‘Let people live their lives, don't practice your religion on them, practice it on yourself.’

I wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to obey my religion.

larry hughes said...

TBH I was on board until heckled and abused by total strangers on FB. That's why I agreed to do the article.

Must admit to being surprised at the extent of the win. That has to be more than a slap in the face for the church. Much more decisive and profound for that.

Impossible not to appreciate and understand their joy. A lady from Sri Lanka spoke wonderfully. Just pray every restaurant and hotel lobby/pub are not infested now with middle aged snogging trannies making a point.

Thanks for the space Mackers. Been home alone with the children, SAS, Sophie and Stig our English Staffordshire terrierists since Wednesday. This wee bit a devilment and wind ups on FB put my days in.

So congrats to the gay winners. Do show some decorum please in public. This bog Irish Mick will just horse on regardless.

Rounding off the day watching Eurovision, Serbia's song on now, she's a 25 stone lezer and a hot favourite.... TO COLLAPSE THE STAGE.

Devils buttermilk good stuff, make sure you have plenty in store next month Mackers, I may go to your local gay club for a laugh.

TA!

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

skipped the first para as it looked convoluted and at a glance seemed to hold little interest for me.

The right to motherhood (in as far as it is can be determined a right) remains. It is no more affected by the referendum result than the death of a mother. Why say no right to motherhood when it could as easily be said no right to fatherhood given that the child could have two mothers if what you fear comes into being?

If the child gets no choice I will be resolutely opposed. I would object to a child being put in the care of any parents it objected going to. A gay child that does not want to be with a mother/father, preferring instead a father/father or mother/mother must have the same rights as a straight child that does not want to go to a gay couple. It would unimaginably cruel to put a child in that position. It is supposed to be an opportunity not a sentence. Children must always be protected from the likes of Missionary Briggs and his ilk - violent thugs, gay or straight.

What the state decides I imagine if it comes to it is if people are fit for purpose in terms of parenthood. It will no longer exclude gay people on the basis of their being gay. It does not follow that they will be parents. There are lots of straight people not fit to be parents - Missionary Briggs for example.

There is nothing whatsoever today prohibiting a woman with children, a widow, divorcee, single mother, cohabitating with another woman. It is not ilegal. Yet all this shouting that something terrible is about to befall us.

Each case will have to bejudged on a standalone basis. There may be cases where it is better for a child to be with two parents of the same sex. We know there are an awful lot of children harmed in families where the parents are of the opposite sex. The father/mother family has often failed children: countless deaths, injuries, abuse. Wells tried to make the case that it would be worse under same sex parents and was laughed out of a ministerial post.

Didn't realise you were once an unbeliever - that was an interesting nugget.

I too have a feeling that a mum/dad is better for kids than a single parent or mum/mum, dad/dad but that is all it really is - a feeling. I can't impose my feeling on people or expect society to function according to what I feel. I used to feel that two parents of the same colour or nationality would be better parents as well but that turned out to be rubbish, so why should my current feeling be any more correct?

Don't worry about common sense - as a screw in the blocks used to say if it was all that common everybody would have some.

I disapprove of polygamy where my daughter would be one of a dozen wives to one husband who would not be one of her 12 husbands because religion is a man's world and she would not be allowd 12 husbands. She would have her rights trampled over by some religious nutter citing the criminal con man Joe Smith and his fictious good book of Mormon. But if he, her and their buddies want to share each other, they are free to do so. So long as they are happy through choice and consent and are not told how to be happy by religious whack jobs - fine by me.

I wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to obey my religion.

Was not talking about you personally but then don't punish them or disadvantage them because they don't live by your religious opinion. Don't deny them work, services, opportunites or equality.


AM said...

Peter,

spot on. Larry unfortunately for his own case and standing has not only come over as a gay hating bigot but his use of the term "nigger" to describe black people has put him in the racist category as well.

Like him as I very much do, there is no excuse or mitigation for that bigotry. It is abhorrent - simple as.

eddie said...

For all his bumming and blowing(no pun intended) bout his academia achievements, Larry has convinced all that he is not just pygma in stature, - maybe lack of stature is one of the causes of his mental disability. He strikes me as one who would not say boo to a goose in public but is aggressively offensive to all when it suits him and when he is in the safe location of wherever his keyboard. Im regular visiter to the PQ site Im at a loss to know what Larry does like or stand for.

Wolfsbane said...

Henry JoY said:
'Larry, Wolfie et al
Would I be right to summarise it as a bummer result, as far as you guys are concerned?'

No doubt about it. Ireland erected a rainbow flag on its Aras.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'The right to motherhood (in as far as it is can be determined a right) remains. It is no more affected by the referendum result than the death of a mother. Why say no right to motherhood when it could as easily be said no right to fatherhood given that the child could have two mothers if what you fear comes into being?'

I wanted to keep it simple - but you are right, the State may not say a child should preferably have a father and mother rather then two mothers or two fathers.

'If the child gets no choice I will be resolutely opposed.'

Most children get no choice. Babies and infants absolutely none.

'I would object to a child being put in the care of any parents it objected going to.'

Have to be old enough to object.

'Children must always be protected from the likes of Missionary Briggs and his ilk - violent thugs, gay or straight.'

Absolutely. But that is not the issue we are debating - we are not talking about abuse, but about the best options. Mother and father families are naturally to be preferred to single parent or same sex families, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. The law can no longer have that view.

'What the state decides I imagine if it comes to it is if people are fit for purpose in terms of parenthood. It will no longer exclude gay people on the basis of their being gay. It does not follow that they will be parents. There are lots of straight people not fit to be parents - Missionary Briggs for example.'

There are several permutations for a fit adoptive family - some more ideal than others,but as long as each is the best possible at the time. The State now cannot have as part of its criteria the idea that a mom and dad would be best, all other things being equal.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
''There is nothing whatsoever today prohibiting a woman with children, a widow, divorcee, single mother, cohabitating with another woman. It is not ilegal. Yet all this shouting that something terrible is about to befall us.'

Again, not my point. A child may end up with a mom and dad, but the State cannot prefer that above a same sex unit, all other things being equal.

'Each case will have to bejudged on a standalone basis. There may be cases where it is better for a child to be with two parents of the same sex. We know there are an awful lot of children harmed in families where the parents are of the opposite sex. The father/mother family has often failed children: countless deaths, injuries, abuse. Wells tried to make the case that it would be worse under same sex parents and was laughed out of a ministerial post.'

Not sure what Wells was doing. But there is some statistical support for a less favourable outcome for same-sex family children:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

But again, my point was not that same-sex units must be ruled out (that's another debate), but that mom-dad units are to be preferred, all other things being equal.

'Didn't realise you were once an unbeliever - that was an interesting nugget.'

We are all born unbelievers. We all need to be converted by the Holy Spirit. That is the historic Christian teaching on human nature. So I have stood in the shoes of the unbeliever and appreciate how you think.

'I too have a feeling that a mum/dad is better for kids than a single parent or mum/mum, dad/dad but that is all it really is - a feeling. I can't impose my feeling on people or expect society to function according to what I feel. I used to feel that two parents of the same colour or nationality would be better parents as well but that turned out to be rubbish, so why should my current feeling be any more correct?'

Good point. The matter needs careful thought - but we can't just refuse to choose what we want to see in law. It must be one or the other. We ought to go with what we see as right, even if we may later change our minds.

For example, if we feel incest ought to be prohibited, no matter the pleadings of those in love with their sibling or other relative, we enact laws accordingly or we don't. We must choose. Maybe in ten years we still find incest to be repugnant but we see it as a right for those who wish it, and we support a change in the law.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'Don't worry about common sense - as a screw in the blocks used to say if it was all that common everybody would have some.'

Agreed - it's not that common. Better to call it 'wisdom'.

'I disapprove of polygamy where my daughter would be one of a dozen wives to one husband who would not be one of her 12 husbands because religion is a man's world and she would not be allowd 12 husbands. She would have her rights trampled over by some religious nutter citing the criminal con man Joe Smith and his fictious good book of Mormon. But if he, her and their buddies want to share each other, they are free to do so. So long as they are happy through choice and consent and are not told how to be happy by religious whack jobs - fine by me.'

I agree. I'm a libertarian, it may surprise you to hear. What adults do in bed is their business. What I object to is them trying to make me say it is morally OK - that's my business. Incest, polygamy, gay, whatever - is between them and God. Would I support them marrying? Not under the title of marriage we have had - but if society decides to re-define marriage, then I have no problem who they marry. I would then urge the churches to give up their legal status in marriage and leave all the legal stuff to the State. Christians could then do their own ceremonies in the church and let the couple arrange for a civil ceremony to do the legal marriage. We could then speak of 'Christian marriage' to distinguish it from 'marriage'.

'[wolfsbane]"I wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to obey my religion."
'Was not talking about you personally but then don't punish them or disadvantage them because they don't live by your religious opinion. Don't deny them work, services, opportunites or equality.'

I don't. Ashers didn't.

larry hughes said...

Wolfsbane

it sure did. Got rid of the RC church dictat and opened the floodgates on the back of 4 per cent of the population and their liberal cheerleaders. When I hear of young kids cheering the results coming in by county it raises the spectre of the vile indoctrination we fear from 2 mammy 2 daddy marriages. Any wonder the country is fucked. 'Sodom and Begorragh' packaged and presented as Ireland's defining moment on the world stage. Like the celtic tiger..... need I say more?

Kids here from September will be indoctrinated that 2 mammy 2 daddy families are normal, desirable and natural at Montessori. In a decade Dublin will be the deviant hub of all Europe.

If there's a referendum in the North I will 'fly' home and vote no. If God willing I have a child in the near future he will go to a N.I. state school.

As for Eddie, even if he had the balls to identify himself he'd still not be worth wiping my HOMOPHOBIC AND PROUD arse with.

AM said...

Have to be old enough to object.

Then the issue becomes one of what is considered best practice and the optimum arrangement considered best for the child.

Mother and father families are naturally to be preferred to single parent or same sex families. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. The law can no longer have that view.

There is no reason for the law to have that view. Law does not dictate morality. What the law will now do (if it works properly) is ensure that a child is adopted into the best situation for it and no longer automatically assume as a result of prejudice (even if well meaning) that one category must get preferential treatment. Each case must be considered on its merit. I am happy with that.

The State now cannot have as part of its criteria the idea that a mom and dad would be best, all other things being equal.

Fine by me. Missionary Briggs shows that each case must be judged on its individual merits.

Not sure what Wells was doing.

In my view bigotry is what he was doing. But I defended in public his right to a different view.

But there is some statistical support for a less favourable outcome for same-sex family children:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

Which we must take heed of and not ride over roughshod because it does not suit a political opinion, or embrace because it suits a political opinion.

We are all born unbelievers. We all need to be converted by the Holy Spirit.

A complete waste of time raising that with me. All gunk as far as I am concerned, not something we are ever going to discuss, any more than we will discuss the flight paths of unicorns.

I'm a libertarian

Fine.

What adults do in bed is their business. What I object to is them trying to make me say it is morally OK

Fine. You should not have to say it is ok. No point in having free speech and then telling you that you are not free to say something is not ok. If you think a gay lifestyle is wrong I think you should say it. If people don’t say what they think is wrong how are the rest of us ever going to know right from wrong? Everything will just be right. You can think what you like as can the gays. But just as you are free to your religious conviction they must be free from it if they so choose. I don’t mind you believing in holy spirits – I just don’t want pestered by it.

I think you are right – the churches should not be legally marrying people. If marriage is some sort of societally endorsed union that assigns responsibilities and rights then the state should deal with it. The Church should no more legally marry a person than Glentoran FC should.

Christians could then do their own ceremonies in the church and let the couple arrange for a civil ceremony to do the legal marriage. We could then speak of 'Christian marriage' to distinguish it from 'marriage'.

Can see no reason why not.

Ashers denied people a cake because at root they objected to them being gay whatever way they spin it. I discussed this the other evening with an observer of the scene and expressed the view that getting the law involved may not be the best way to handle these matters. If it was a chemist refusing a morning after pill, I would want them sacked, or a marriage registrar like Lillian Ladelle refusing to administer a civil partnership. In something like this the demarcation line is not just as crisp.

Regardless, the gays involved do not subscribe to the religious opinion of the Ashers people. Ashers should not therefore have practiced their religion on the gays who have the right to be free from religion being practiced on them. If the gays had done something horribly wrong I would be sympathetic to Ashers but asking for a cake?

Henry JoY said...

Ian

A rainbow fleg ... wouldn't be surprised at all if Michael D took one in the Áras!

eddie said...

Larry
I dont know what balls or the lack of them has to do with anything. I think you are all mouth and no trousers.

We have met before but obviously you dont remember. Im sure our paths will cross again and you will know me when or I will fully identify myself to you.

Your at least over the top in your most recent postings to PQ. Or possibly you are suffering and need to seek help. I know you have good friends on this site, dont be afraid to ask for help.

HOMOPHOBIC and PROUD arse? Shouldnt that be short arse?

larry hughes said...

Eddie (?)

not even a glimmer of recognition. Threats on here come and go, causing zero loss of sleep. I have practically no respect for the yes campaigners having been a potential yes voter who was deluged with nasty attacks from total strangers online for even 'considering' options. Ugly PC bullying. So, it is what it is.

They like muzzling people and handing out slurs, but don't like it bake. Abhorrent they are.

larry hughes said...

didn't take long.

http://www.irishtimes.com/campaign-to-promote-ireland-as-same-sex-wedding-destination-1.2224558

Robert said...

A gay guy goes into a bar and asks in an effete voice, "Can I have a beer please?"

"We don't serve your types in here," says the butch barman.

"Serve me or I'll bring my fierce German Shepherd in here," says the gay guy.

The barman laughs his head off.

The gay guy comes back in with a truly magnificent German Shepherd. "Let him have it, Cyril!" he orders.

Cyril puts his front paws on the bar and barks, "Bowsy-wowsy!"

eddie said...

Larry
I would be genuinely sorry if you were so abused, and take you at your word that you were abused, I would have stood with you if it had been done within my earshot.

However, I dont think you were abused on the PQ site so we should not have been subjected to abuse from you because you were abused elsewhere.

I dont wish to get into a debate about your fears for the future in the wake of the Yes vote, however, I have to say I think your fears are irrational. I hope, and think you would agree, that it would be better if I was right on this occasion, that is, that your fears will, in time, prove to be unfounded.

As someone who has had experience of it, I would caution you that it is now a standard practice in the employment selection process for employers HR departments to google the names of prospective candidates or applicants to see what they are saying and doing on websites. I think employers would see people with views like yourself as a potential liability to them and make a decision not to select, or worse, deselect.

Gerard. said...

Every point that could be made on this issue has been made here. But I'd like to raise one aspect of this. About a year ago there was a programme on Amazon called Transparent, and the plot was this retired guy wanted to live life as a woman. He'd always felt he was trapped in the wrong body and his ex wife knew this, he used to dress up in her clothes. In California he went to self help groups and camps a bit like kids summer camps where a person lived life as who they wanted and then left to fit back into their own main stream lives out in society.

Anyhow he leaves work and retires knowing his colleagues won't accept him, and he's selling the family home because he knows his neighbours won't accept him and he moves and lives life as Maura.


But this is not a story of fulfilment. Far from it. His children are selfish and promiscuous but on the face of it they accept him as a transvestite and a parent - trans-parent, but Maura gets hit all along the way and ends up throughly miserable. Why, because society, even one as open and liberal as California isn't geared for it. This is what will happen in Ireland, as a society we aren't geared for it, and all along the way a gay couple is going to hit trouble.

It could be said mixed race couples hit trouble at one time, but not like this. There is a disadvantage built in.

Can you imagine a young unemployed gay couple from Ballymun hoping to get on the housing list in front
Of a single mother? Or the same couple looking to adopt? This is a right only for those gay couples who can afford the right and even then there will still. Be insurmountable problems. This is for middle class and upwards in irish society not your ordinary gay person on the street, without funding for the pitfalls. A right in society without the material. Means of achieving it isn't a right at all, it's a back slapping exercise of didn't we do well. Sure aren't we great....

John McGirr said...

The bullying that Larry has taken on here, and elsewhere, is just the tip of the ice berg for what any one who has refused to be brow beaten over puff pastry or homo-marriage.

The strange thing is that all the western, liberal, degenerates who have the audacity to look down on the views of Africans, or East Europeans as if they alone have evolved into a super race whose latest fads have to be accepted as orthodoxy.

This is the 21st century, yes. Even now the dominant world views, (outside of a degenerate Anglo-Saxon led west), is that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexual behaviour is not to be encouraged. How racist of those who would dismiss the views and concerns of Africans.

AM said...

John,

I thought you had relocated to Kampala.

Larry has not been bullied here. His claim is that he was bullied elsewhere and I have no problem believing him about that. He has been challenged. In fact he has been given advice in terms of how not to make a bad situation worse.

The views and concerns of Africans are important. That is why we shun any slurring of them as "niggers". Larry erred badly there and in time will rethink that.

He made a robust, even if for many a distasteful or obnoxious argument in his piece. That is his right. He lost it in the follow up and got himself into something of a bind.

There is no excusing his post-article comments which were a venting of bigotry even if he does not hold the views he gave expression to but simply lost it and went on a rant. It happens.

But like everybody else who says things in the comment section and is not an absolute pest, his input here is not regarded as sworn testimony as far as we are concerned. The rule of thumb here is that people draft their thoughts in the comments section but don't actually sign off on them. For that reason he will be criticised not crucified.

Peter said...

John McGirr

"Homosexual behaviour is not to be encouraged" brilliant, I nearly fell off my chair laughing! Between 5 and 10 % of the population are gay/bi and there is evidence for this going back millennia. There are 400 species of animal that exhibit homosexual behaviour. Homosexual behaviour is a fact of life, no-one is "encouraging" you to join in. Your irrational disgust is due to the purely evil machinations of religious zealots over the centuries. What goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults should concern no-one. Live and let live.

John McGirr said...

"What goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults should concern no-one. Live and let live."

But when such behaviour is flaunted in our faces we will react. The fact that two men now constitute a family and have the right to have children ought to concern everyone.

This is about a perversion of the natural use between people. It really has nothing to do with religion anymore than eating does.

In fact there are a lot of people unhappy that the Catholic Church did next to nothing to support the NO campaign. Many prominent Catholics backed the YES vote and not one has been reprimanded. Shame on them, and shame on the fact that the reason they didn't was that there are so many homosexual predators in the ranks of the clergy.

AM said...

John,

I hope what we eat now is not going to offend you as well. Imagine getting a crack of the crozier for eating a bit of steak on a Friday.

What if one or more of your own children turn out gay?

I can think of plenty of gay people who in my view would make good parents. I can count the bishops who I think would make good parents on the fingers of my two feet.

The world has moved on and your people can huff and puff but the rainbow house will be left standing at the end of it.

John McGirr said...

"The views and concerns of Africans are important."

Almost every African state vigorously opposes homosexual acts and especially so called marriage between each other, even at the cost of their being starved of much needed funding.

In what way are the Anglo-Saxon, degenerate former imperial powers any different now than when they thought they knew best in the colonial days.

Just why is this western elite superior? Is it evolution? On what basis do you discount the views of African peoples, or for that matter, East Europeans, and 84% of the world?

Just why is this Anglo-Saxon dominated minority so right? So far they have only fooled one part of one country into voting for it. To do that they had to bully and to brow-beat and lie, together with using billions of American dollars. Even then more people voted no than vote for either FG or FF.

John McGirr said...

"The world has moved on"

14% of it has anyway.

AM said...

John,

I guess when we see an African pope and half the clergy female, we could pause to consider that you might actually believe what you say rather than a rant borne out of being a bad loser.

The rape of Africa was ably facilitated by bible waving thugs.

The Vatican can always set up camp in Kampala.

Fewer listening to god guff.

John McGirr said...

AM, Why do you keep insisting that this is a religious question? My estimate is that 80% of modern Catholic are homo-friendly, rising to 100% of under 40s.
That is why the vote was YES. Those who don't go to Mass probably had a higher proportion of NO votes that those who do go.
So, without attacking religion, can you tell me why the only accepted view today is the one espoused by the former colonial nations?
Just what makes the degenerate west so superior? Is it evolution? Are they a super race?

AM said...

John,

for the most part it is a religious issue. But the religious know that when they bring Jesus into the debate it is a switch off and more likely than not to produce a reaction other than the one intended.

Are you trying to wave the anti-imperialism flag now? Straights against Gay Imperialism. Good for a laugh if nothing else.

The world is flat John and I am away to fly over it rather than around it on my unicorn.

I don't share your superstitions John for which I am thankful. And in the Ireland of today I am free to do so.

The people have voted, the bastards. We could of course set up a religious dictatorship and that would cure us of our sickness. Nah, the disease is much better than the cure.

John McGirr said...

AM, I understand the fact that you can't or won't answer my question about why the Anglo Saxon degenerate western views trump those of the rest of the world.
But can you tell me why marriage should only be between two people? Why not three, four or any other number?
Also, why should brother not marry brother, or father or grandfather? Should there be any laws about incest any more? If so, why?

AM said...

John,

if you have read me at all (and I don't claim to have any special ability that would merit my writings being read by you) it should not have escaped you that I do not subscribe to a Eurocentric superiority of knowledge. I think the Western and Christian suppression of regions like Africa abominable. Those countries would have been much better off without our saints and our sinners, our missionaries and out military, our bible and our bollix.

Your point is?

The problem with some of us Western supremacists is that when the Africans were in need of condoms to prevent the spread of aids we felt our knowledge was superior to theirs so we denied them access and in doing so occasioned a crime against humanity.

I have no doubt that the institution of marriage will evolve to the type of situation you refer to. At present we can have as many wives or husbands as we can handle, just not at the one time. Divorce affords us that freedom. It might develop into polygamy. If so it will be decided by society and not forced upon society by some "authority" waving a bible or Ludlum novel.

Incest is a taboo. It could lose that status. Gayness was once a taboo but that was lost. The age of consent will also change: it might go up or down but society will decide not a cleric.

Scientific discoveries might make incest medically safe and then it will become a matter for society to decide if it is permissible. Your personal distaste for it will have no more relevance than your distaste for gay culture. Can't imagine the way I think that I would vote for it but time changes people's attitudes. At one time in this society we outlawed gay sex, now we don't.

How does society decide these matters? If the people don't who will? The bishops? The mullahs? The scientists? What authority are we to rely upon if not our own collective judgement?

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'Ashers denied people a cake because at root they objected to them being gay whatever way they spin it.'

That's simply not true! They serve gay people all the time. What they refused to do, and still refuse to do, was make a cake decorated with a slogan that conflicted with their conscience.

They refuse to make such a cake for anyone, straight or gay. How can that be discrimination?

'I discussed this the other evening with an observer of the scene and expressed the view that getting the law involved may not be the best way to handle these matters. If it was a chemist refusing a morning after pill, I would want them sacked, or a marriage registrar like Lillian Ladelle refusing to administer a civil partnership. In something like this the demarcation line is not just as crisp.'

If one joins a profession where such service is mandated, then you would have a point. [I'll leave out a discussion on how that would discriminate against all those opposed to abortion. But until now no one has imagined bakers had lost their freedom of conscience. Apparently now they have - and all messages that are lawful must be produced if asked for. That is a disastrous loss of freedom of conscience.

'Regardless, the gays involved do not subscribe to the religious opinion of the Ashers people. Ashers should not therefore have practiced their religion on the gays who have the right to be free from religion being practiced on them. If the gays had done something horribly wrong I would be sympathetic to Ashers but asking for a cake?'

Not a cake - but a slogan. 'Support Gay Marriage'. So they were not imposing their religion on him - he was trying to do that on them!

Remind me again, do you say a Nationalist baker must bake a cake with 'Ulster Is British' on it? Or a Muslim baker one with a likeness of Muhammed?

Or is it just Christians who have to make things abhorrent to their conscience?

John McGirr said...

Glad to see that you are brave enough to put in writing the way that you see society going, even where it is heading for polygamy and incest. Not sure why you keep bringing religion in to it. It is just something you can't seem to get out of your mind. Try it sometime.

Meanwhile, your collective consciousness is no more valid than the collective consciousness of Russia, Africa or most of the rest of the world.

Just remember, when you want to denigrate others, for daring to hold to what we once all did, that you are a tiny minority. At the last count I believe it is 20 countries where homosexuals can marry. Who knows if you will ever prevail against the vast majority of the right-thinking world, or if it will be realised that the world does not revolve around the perversions exported from the English public schools.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'[Mother and father families are naturally to be preferred to single parent or same sex families. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. The law can no longer have that view].
There is no reason for the law to have that view. Law does not dictate morality. What the law will now do (if it works properly) is ensure that a child is adopted into the best situation for it and no longer automatically assume as a result of prejudice (even if well meaning) that one category must get preferential treatment. Each case must be considered on its merit. I am happy with that.'

So you think mom-dad parents are not better than dad-dad or mom-mom parents, all other things being equal? You don't suspect that even nature, never mind religion, says otherwise?

'Missionary Briggs shows that each case must be judged on its individual merits.'

All missionary Briggs shows is that brutes exist everywhere. That does not show that having a mom & dad is better than the alternatives, all things being equal. That is, that the ideal home for a child is one with a mom & dad.

'[But there is some statistical support for a less favourable outcome for same-sex family children:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research]
Which we must take heed of and not ride over roughshod because it does not suit a political opinion, or embrace because it suits a political opinion.'

Indeed! But even pointing to such research is viewed as blasphemy by the PC/Gay lobby.

'[We are all born unbelievers. We all need to be converted by the Holy Spirit].
A complete waste of time raising that with me. All gunk as far as I am concerned, not something we are ever going to discuss, any more than we will discuss the flight paths of unicorns.'

I posted it because you expressed surprise that I was not always a Christian. It was just a brief explanation.

'You can think what you like as can the gays. But just as you are free to your religious conviction they must be free from it if they so choose. I don’t mind you believing in holy spirits – I just don’t want pestered by it.'

I wouldn't want to pester anyone with the gospel or any part of its message. But the right to public speech and publication does mean one may hear or receive a message one doesn't want. A simple, "No Thank You" or blank stare should be enough to stop any advances.

Same goes for me and atheists, politicians, cults, salesmen, etc. They have a right to initially approach, but that is all.


DaithiD said...

Jimmy Carr had a succinct take on it : Being gays's fucking sh*t.

Hahaha

AM said...

John,

Nothing there that would merit a response.

Try and draw the positive lesson out of this. Regard it as practice for all the future battles you are certain to lose.


Wolfsbane,


That's simply not true! They serve gay people all the time. What they refused to do, and still refuse to do, was make a cake decorated with a slogan that conflicted with their conscience.

An excuse or a reason? It does sound too much like splitting hairs.

A white supremacist could make the same argument that he is not being racist because he has served blacks but not when they sought to reaffirm their blackness because it conflicted with his conscience.

How convincing would it be?

They refuse to make such a cake for anyone, straight or gay. How can that be discrimination?

They would bake a cake I presume that said “support heterosexual marriage”. That would be discriminatory. Because something is in line with one’s conscience does not make it less prejudiced.

What was being discriminated against was the affirmation of gayness which is at the centre of these people’s identity. A white person walking into the white owned shop and asking for a cake with the words “support desegregation” and who was refused would still be the victim of discrimination, the target of prejudice on the basis that he did not hold a view held by the shopkeeper.

Look at some of the evidence offered in court:

how we could stand before God and bake a cake like this, promoting a cause like this ...
As Christians gay marriage is contradictory to the Bible. We believe as Christians we cannot put it on a cake ... The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage


The Ashers action boiled down to religious prejudice/conviction. I think Ashers sought to equip themselves with the best defence for court. That entailed as much wriggle room as possible. Much like the manner (described by the judge as dishonest) in which the Intelligent Design people sought to smuggle creationism into the school in Dover and then dance on the head of a pin in a bid to claim they were not.

If one joins a profession where such service is mandated, then you would have a point.

Which is why I think the Ashers case had to be explored in a way that would take account of the greater nuance. Although the court verdict would suggest I have a point in the case of Ashers, I do not want my view of it determined by court judgements.

So they were not imposing their religion on him

The Ashers argument in court for opposing the inscription on the cake was based on their religious opinion: their decision to deny was a direct consequence of their stated religious opposition to the affirmation of gayness. They sought to deny the gay couple a cake affirming their gayness because of religious conviction. They sought to practice their religion on the gays in a bid to restrict their choices. I can see it no other way.

Remind me again, do you say a Nationalist baker must bake a cake with 'Ulster Is British' on it? Or a Muslim baker one with a likeness of Muhammed? Or is it just Christians who have to make things abhorrent to their conscience?

I said nothing to you about it that would give me any grounds to remind you. Must have been somebody else you were talking to.

But I will answer your question.

If we are in the cake business and by the rules of the marketplace we must deliver in a non-discriminatory manner, I can see no reason we could offer for allowing individual prejudice (we may call it conscience if you prefer) to facilitate the denial of services in the two scenarios you outlined.

There are many things I would baulk at writing on a cake “God Is Great” or “Save Ulster from Sodomy” but I cannot think of a reason that would allow me to refuse while at the same time allowing me to claim that I was not discriminating against Ashers and Christians. What goes on the cake is a business transaction, not a statement of belief by me.

Peter said...

John
"the perversions exported from the English public schools".
Gay sex has been practiced for millenia, priests were riding each other, and little boys, way before there were public schools in England.

Robert said...

Anthony,

'What authority are we to rely upon if not our own collective judgement?'

May I be so outrageously regressive, without occasoning your online meltdown, as to suggest God!

A mere eighty years separates us and the collective judgement of German society upon the Jews - it is perhaps not the Nazis but collective societal judgement that should act, in the words of Laurence Rees as, the real '..warning from history.'

If history teaches us anything it is about how fickle society's judgement is over time and place. The homosexuals it bestows with equality today it will quite conceivably hunt down with lurchers in the name of sport or equality or whatever rationale it decides to place upon it's judgements and actions
in the coming centuries and millenia

AM said...

Robert,

I groan when I see another comment as it exhausts me.

A waste of your time and mine trying to engage me on either gods or unicorns. You know that anyway so I guess you are winding me up. Which I don't mind.

Given the amount of gods you don't believe in and I only disbelieve in one more than you, which one of the old tyrants are we to choose from? Spare me any answer as my eyes will glaze over.

Despite its messiness, rough edges, ability to frustrate, unpredictably, a democracy looks infinitely preferable to a theocracy. The totalitarianism of god is not for me nor is the totalitarianism of men who behave like god, Hitler and his ilk.

The same sort of argument was cited in White South Africa for not extending equality to black people.

Without collective societal judgement (not the collectivism of totalitarianism which I fear) we don't have democracy.


John McGirr said...

AM It didn't require a response. You have now agreed that it is likely that polygamy and incest will result, and they will, from the referendum result. Fortunately for you most people are not as honest as you. Had people realised this there would not have been a Yes vote. But the people were bullied and fooled by a micro group of perverts and their backers.
I find if I don't want to respond, I just don't respond. It is a little pointless to make a point of not responding. But if you have the time on your hands.....

larry hughes said...

Just catching up here. Was in Galway Hospital all day having my emotional wounds stitched up. Got in a bit too deep in the referendum controversy and suffered for it.

Makers

you are correct, I over stepped the mark a few times attempting to draw face-book Phantoms into the open on here without success. Their only ID there was Asher's cake or rainbow flag type logos, no personal info. Silly on my part. The 'N' word was unforgiveable I was trying to point out Blacks Jews and Gays are groups which in my view the PC lobby have been rendered untouchable and indeed unmentionable in anything other than a positive light. That is how I should have expressed it. Sincere apologies Anthony for any shame/embarrassment brought to the Quill as a result.

Eddie cheers for the sentiment. Very much appreciated. Thank you. As for my concerns. Having taught English in Asia a number of times and with a wife originally from Manila we are very conscious of what American military bases have left behind in places such as Pattaya and Angelles City. Google those. I feared that good intentions on Ireland's part might be abused by undesirable elements in droves. Arriving in here through (dare I say it) the back door.

How wrong was I. The decent gay community here have been cynically used to rush through equality legislation designed to attract gay sex tourism to Ireland in massive numbers. THAT was the real agenda. Are we really to believe a collection of Dail sewer rats for life who sold the population into decades of debt to bail out criminal gambling bankers and then refuse to back down in a new water charge scheme for EVERYONE is actually concerned about 4 per cent of Ireland that is gay? REALLY?

We have been pimped out and branded the Rainbow republic by scoundrels who have no pride in our country. And no shame in themselves.

The Rainbow Republican Warrior Army may have claimed its first victim today. Poor Peter Robinson suffered a heart attack. Probably at the realisation the RC church is history. What will the DUP do now?

On a lighter note. Village people are doing a remix of the Broad Black Brimmer.

'There's a uniform that's hanging in what's known as (2) fathers room'.

And 'Wrap the green flag round me boys' is now being changed to

'wrap the gay fleg round me bi'

Interesting times ahead.

My wife and I loved Peter's joke about the Alsatian, absolutely near choked on our Chinese. Priceless. Wife asked 'who raised that dog' in convulsions.

John

I don't feel bullied here, I was foolish enough to bring FB anger from faceless people regarding this article here in an attempt to lure them into the open. Contemplated Eddie may have been one briefly but that was obviously totally unfounded I'm delighted to say. Onwards and upem...SORRY upwards...ONWARD AND UPWARDS.

larry hughes said...

I wonder might it be too much to ask if the gay attraction venue be located at Shannon airport where maximum business could be attained from our unofficial American guardians based there?

The wife has threatened to shampoo my mouth and take me to 'The George' for a beer in Dublin. So, I'd best behave a while.

AM said...

Larry,

the Quill did not suffer. Probably benefited from the response against you and also the controversy which is often a pull for any site, whether it intends it or not.

I think the joke was Robert's.

It is hard to admit a mistake so credit to those that do.

AM said...

little is fixed John: there are countess regimes of truth and very few immutable truths. Every order imposed on the world contains a large measure of falsehood. Democracy is better in its disorder.

larry hughes said...

coming to a national monument near you soon. courtesy of Enda Kenny and his LOVE of the euro.

https://youtu.be/HZyQpI6KM8U

larry hughes said...

Yes...Robert's Joke...corker

sean bres said...

Quite the thread, only just got reading it... Great to see it, debate is good. The thing that struck me throughout Anthony was your determination not to allow religion to enter the conversation while yourself introducing it and then talking about it relentlessly. It's an interesting tactic but not one I'm seeing for the first time - it's a common approach. A man as intelligent as yourself should be fit to make his point and win such a debate without resorting to condescension. Anywhere a point was made worthy of further discussion, which might have helped tease out possible implications arising from this decision, say on the matter of adoption (which as far as I can tell is Larry's main gripe), you sought to strangle it at point by vilifying religious belief - despite no-one but yourself making mention of religion or its relevance to the matters at hand. In my opinion it is an underhand debating technique but as I say, nevertheless it was an interesting conversation. Larry you have no reason to apologise for the 'niggers, queers and Jews' comment as it was plainly tongue in cheek, the idea you're racist or meant it as such is garbage - as Anthony full well knows. Regardless, it's usually better to avoid that language as it can be used as a stick to beat with - regardless of the context. Why hand your opponents a free swipe? Fair play for writing the piece in the first place, while at times it's typical over-the-top Hughesmeister nevertheless there were salient points raised, conveniently dodged by rampaging attacks on the 'God-squad'. Maith thu

Robert said...

Anthony,

'I groan when I see another comment as it exhausts me.'

Yes, those pesky comments and much like books,'..there are bastards writing more!' An occupational hazard I expect of moderating a forum that journalises and permits commentary on some of the great issues of the times.

'The problem with some of us Western supremacists is that when the Africans were in need of condoms to prevent the spread of aids we felt our knowledge was superior to theirs so we denied them access and in doing so occasioned a crime against humanity.'

The normalisation and social acceptance of sexual practices that act as a bridge to HIV and AIDS transmission to women in Ireland is not?

AM said...

Sean,

feel free. Catholic religious whack jobs are as welcome here as Protestant ones! Gerry Kelly doesn't run this site where only the Catholics count LOL. Unlike Ashers Quillers will bake a cake suitably laced with arsenic for you all!

Understood very little of what any of that was about. Religion - not my thing: neither theology nor unicornology.

Robert,

that is sort of the problem, bastards writing more. McGuffin would have enjoyed all this. AIDS can be transmitted in numerous ways. But to compare run of the mill gay sexual activity, even if you disapprove of another's sex life, as a crime against humanity on a par with the sheer evil of condom denial brings your perspective much too close to those who think Tsunamis and natural disaster are punishments from a god displeased at gay sex.

Even those Christian people opposed to heroin use still hand out clean needles. I suppose it is the difference between religious evil and religious good.

sean bres said...

Your argument was and is strong enough on its own merit without all this nonsense about unicorns. The only one cracking in about religion was yourself and that's all I'm saying

AM said...

Sean,

just read that to try and get a grasp of it and didn't think it amounted to a lot. You seem to have read my comments back to front or upside down. In my discussion with Wolfsbane I have made the point that it is very much about religion. At no point have I sought to dissuade people from talking about religion. In fact John McGirr is of the view that it is not about religion and that I bring it in. I read about religion all the time. Reading about the Mormon nut jobs at the minute. What I ask people not to do is waste my time and their own talking to me about god, or bringing the Jesus guy into conversation with me. I have no interest in god, unicorns, mermaids, flying spaghetti monsters. It is a complete and utter waste of time trying to get me to talk about them. Robert knows this so winds me up. I can enjoy that. He believes the world is about six to ten thousand years old: that's his thing. I just let it go rather than harangue him. There is so much else to discuss. Wolfsbane refers to god, I swoon, we move on. He knows not to preach to me as it is a conversation killer. We discuss religion here all the time: its effects, its right to exist as an opinion, people's right to practice it on themselves but not on others.

But listening to all you lot makes me think that I'll end up on the booze with Peter looking out the bar window while you all thrust rosary beads in the faces of women, and hand out those ridiculous comic tracts they tried giving us on the blanket. And for all Larry's ranting and raving I guess he'll be in the bar with us.

sean bres said...

You seem to be missing the point that, at least as far as I could read, no-one mentioned God, unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters only yourself

sean bres said...

Despite preaching how you have no wish to entertain such discussion you are the man who initiated that line. Some of the comments towards McGirr were highly dismissive to say the least

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'What was being discriminated against was the affirmation of gayness which is at the centre of these people’s identity.'

Agreed!

'Look at some of the evidence offered in court:
how we could stand before God and bake a cake like this, promoting a cause like this ...
As Christians gay marriage is contradictory to the Bible. We believe as Christians we cannot put it on a cake ... The problem was with the message on the cake. As a Christian I do not support gay marriage'

Exactly. "The problem was with the message on the cake" - not the customer.

'The Ashers action boiled down to religious prejudice/conviction.'

Yes.


'The Ashers argument in court for opposing the inscription on the cake was based on their religious opinion: their decision to deny was a direct consequence of their stated religious opposition to the affirmation of gayness.'

Correct.

'They sought to deny the gay couple a cake affirming their gayness because of religious conviction.'

Correct.

'They sought to practice their religion on the gays in a bid to restrict their choices. I can see it no other way.'

The gays had no right to expect Christians to make a cake saying 'Support Gay Marriage'.


'If we are in the cake business and by the rules of the marketplace we must deliver in a non-discriminatory manner, I can see no reason we could offer for allowing individual prejudice (we may call it conscience if you prefer) to facilitate the denial of services in the two scenarios you outlined.
There are many things I would baulk at writing on a cake “God Is Great” or “Save Ulster from Sodomy” but I cannot think of a reason that would allow me to refuse while at the same time allowing me to claim that I was not discriminating against Ashers and Christians. What goes on the cake is a business transaction, not a statement of belief by me.'

I'm glad you didn't duck the question, unlike many other anti-Ashers folk. You and Peter Tatchell agree that everyone must print/make messages they find repugnant.

But this has come as a big surprise, not only to the Ashers owners, but to many secularists. I never dreamed I had the right to make an atheist printer print a gospel tract, nor a Secular Humanist magazine accept adverts for Christian meetings.

So surprising is this that secularists themselves are likely to challenge it in court.

If TPQ ever start taking ads, book me a space for gospel message!

larry hughes said...

Mackers

I'll be in the bar with anyone given the chance. However Sean is correct. For someone devoid of religious faith you use it in argument even when no one brings it up. It is like anyone who has a different view than the gay agenda is a homophobe. Like a sexual criminal or deviant for being straight and having a thought process. You complain about the SF thought police but wheel out religion as a weapon on behalf of the GAYstapo at every opportunity.

Bring plenty of money, YOU'RE buying!

AM said...

Larry,

try that again but write it a bit slower as I can't read that fast.

AM said...

Larry/Sean,

go back and read the comments again and you will find John McGirr introduced the God and the bible in the very first comment. Now his point was that, as he argued later, religion had nothing to do with it. I have argued that this is the wrong position to take: while Larry argues from a secular position the broader issue is heavily steeped in religion. I cited the court testimony from the Ashers people so highlight the religiosity and Wolfsbane agreed that these are very much matters driven by religious conscience.

Case not proven lads.

As for John McGirr, don't worry about him Sean: he has been around here long enough to know how to give it and to get it.

Henry JoY said...

Wolfsbane says "The gays had no right to expect Christians to make a cake saying 'Support Gay Marriage'. "

Sorry Ian, as uncomfortable as you find all of that the law of the land states otherwise and the courts accordingly ruled against Ashers.

If a printing company were to refuse to accept any of your religious propaganda you would have the same recourse to the courts. And I would support your right to do that.

AM said...

Henry Joy,

while you make a good point you don't need to tell us it six times!

You must be away again and struggling with fingers and phone

John McGirr said...

"go back and read the comments again and you will find John McGirr introduced the God and the bible in the very first comment"

I said that "Best of all, it relies on solid human reason and good sense, without having recourse to God or Bible."

That is a plea for them NOT to be introduced. No one can argue without common ground. While there are those who do not accept either of these it is pointless to use them as authorities.

I am against homosexual marriage because homosexuals cannot effect the purpose of marriage. Society could not care less if two or more people are happy, but it does have an interest in its own survival. It is, as Larry points out, the question of children that is of over-riding importance. That is why introducing God and religion, Anthony, is just a smokescreen. The same as when you damn his article because I have praised it.

Let what Larry wrote stand or fall on the grounds he covered. Ashers were indeed foolish to bring God into it, but that is their business.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

It just slips my mind that typing too fast creates a problem for you at your stage of life. Good to see you and your care-home buddies still get 'out' for a day here and there,

https://youtu.be/vx2H8J8rkyo

sean bres said...

Anthony, I knew full well you'd conveniently attribute responsibility for the religious angle to McGirr's first comment, to me that's no more than a cop-out, a handy excuse - and the truth is you know it. You've been waxing mad about religion throughout this debate, about how you'll not be brow-beat by those darn Christians and their demands that you kneel before the flying unicorn. The trouble is no-one at any stage done so, no a chara, no-one asked you to or even insinuated you must, you just added it in to suit your argument. In terms of Ashers the law correctly identified they discriminated, as a public concern they were duty-bound to put whatever message was on the order - which they accepted - unless it was likely to lead to criminal (not non-legal as some have been trying to suggest) behaviour or was a reflection of criminality. It's as simple as that and religion - or anti-religion in this instance - doesn't need to be rammed down people's throats to make the point - flying spaghetti monsters or anything else doesn't need to come into it, the point is strong enough on its own merits. Ashers know it and thus why they have accepted the decision

AM said...

John,

I think the point was made very clearly as to why you introduced god and the bible - much as you assert.

I happen to think it wrong and made the case that religion is very much at the heart of the issue even if Larry argues a secular position.

My reference to your support for Larry was banter but maybe the double H factor is at play, both to be banned in the theocracy you envisage for us - humour and homos.
The purpose of marriage is as society determines it to be. Using your logic people who know they are infertile would not be allowed to marry.

You are right: only fools bring god into anything!!

AM said...

Larry,

I have come to share the view of Brendan O'Neill that terms like homophobia and Islamophobia are mechanisms for "pathologising dissent". I do not indulge them.

larry hughes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
larry hughes said...

Mackers

Unfortunately the gay activists seem to jump straight into the homophobe slander the second anyone even hints at an alternative take to theirs. That's why I was forming the opinion a Homophobe or straight pride movement might require setting up.

Anyhow, it is 39 minutes past midnight so to all of us now designated as living in the rainbow republic 'nighty-night-night...sweeties'.

John McGirr said...

"I have come to share the view of Brendan O'Neill that terms like homophobia and Islamophobia are mechanisms for "pathologising dissent". I do not indulge them. "

It is seeing a comment like that that reminds me why I even bother to look at the PQ.

We need to get beyond that. We might even be surprised at the extent of our agreement, once we break away for those nonsensical terms.

Robert said...

Sean,

'You've been waxing mad about religion throughout this debate, about how you'll not be brow-beat by those darn Christians and their demands that you kneel before the flying unicorn.'

Had I not been following this discussion, I am informed enough from personal experience and observation over the years, to view this as a misrepresentation of Anthony's approach. For those of us who might, there seems little point in continually knocking at his door seeking a favourable response on religion or feigning ignorance to him having hung out a 'do not disturb' notice for those with a religious opinion. His atheism is legend.

On the increasingly rare occasions that the 'Pastafarian' opens the door to indulge us on religious matters I have always found him nonchalant on the opinion but altogether courteous. We can hardly expect enthusiasm where none exists. Even allowing for the colander that he sometimes takes to wearing on his head and which I oft times suspect has scrambled it in relation to the existence of a creator and to the youthfulness of Earth, 'waxing mad' is a description that I could never ascribe to him.

AM said...

This tends to underscore the case that religion is very much an intrinsic part of this issue. This guy would happily take us back to the Ark. I also happen to think that a large component of the Yes vote was people asserting their right to be free from religion. So, in my view, religion was a major strand in this referendum on both sides.

AM said...

The way in which the referendum is being read is also a sign of the religious/anti-religious nature of the dispute. This from A Catholic feminist theologian. There are plenty of loose particles hovering around the discussion but much of the gravitational pull is still religious/anti-religious influence

sean bres said...

Read that link Anthony. First off, the idea homosexuality is a sin is preposterous. Secondly, 'who am I to judge' should be the position the Vatican sticks to, in terms of their entitlement to dictate the moral paradigm unfortunately they are damaged goods. The Vatican should concentrate on its own moral decadence before attempting to resolve anything beyond that, the first place it can begin is with it's continuing support for usury

Mary Marscal said...

@ Sean Bres Re ‘First off, the idea homosexuality is a sin is preposterous’ To me it definitely is not preposterous. The bowel and anus are not made to withstand penile penetration, objects being stuffed up them and so forth. Common sense and basic knowledge of physiology informs us there is something not right about it but if you want to sanction it that’s your prerogative. You might like to ask some medical ppl who work in emergency admissions about anal tissues tears, rectal damage and fecal leaking resulting from gay sex. All a reality. As for lesbian sex how can fisting and such be deemed normal. Bladder damage etc can result. The human body is designed in such a way that it is apparent how the genders are intended to interact sexually. The psychological aspects are a whole other sphere…
You are correct about the irony of the Vatican dictates and such. How could anyone take their dictates seriously with their protracted history of abominations. I believe in seeing the person - not what's between their legs or their gender identity or sexual mores. Sexuality is only one facet of a person. The God stuff will always be entangled with issues such as these. I am a believer in God - not atheism or trendiness or hipster paradise. I also believe every single human life is precious & to reject someone because of their sexual practices is wrong. I refuse to dumb down my spiritual convictions for anyone or anything. Love how the trendies are all for celebrating diversity until someone who believes in God makes a statement. Atheists are quite clever usually & I respect some of their stances but not all. It's a big world - some people are gay and some people believe in God. End of story. Get over it.

John McGirr said...

Sean,
That homosexual acts should be regarded as sinful by the various religions is normal. If they should be allowable then why not fornication, adultery etc?

The fact that homosexual acts are a 'sin crying to Heaven for vengeance' is unlikely to bother many on here though.

There has been a lot of slippage on the usury area though. That is another area where too many compromises have been made with disastrous results.

sean bres said...

Some people are gay and some people believe in God, erm, who said anything to the contrary? I have a belief in God also but that does not compel me to hold those I know who are gay to be somehow of lesser worth. The words of Jesus himself are enough to deal with this matter, let he without sin cast the first stone. The Vatican is an instrument of imperialism and not, as it falsely claims, the House of God. I don't need a building or a Pontiff to tell me how to relate to the Word but I admit I have good time for Francis. The Kingdom of God is within man not in corrupted human institutions, it is the communion of spirit that connects all things, of which even our gay brothers and sisters are part

AM said...

John,

adultery is allowed by society and by some religions. Fornication is great not that I have the energy for it these days. But to be 18 again and not in jail. The Mormons long practiced polygamy and claimed their right to do so was biblical - Abraham and Jacob.

It seriously bothers me, and I am sure quite a few here, that homosexuality is a 'sin crying to Heaven for vengeance.' It is the vengeance that bother me; the sin not in the slightest. What sort of vengeance? Who is to be the avenger? If there is a heaven it should be a simple matter of waiting on its arrival and then whoever cries from heaven for vengeance can have it. Seems a reasonable way to approach the matter.

AM said...

John,

at the risk of labouring the point - crying from the heavens suggests yet another reason for suspecting that the opposition to gays is to a large extent shaped by religious prejudice.

AM said...

Mary,

your usual forthright view. Disagreeable as it may well be to me and others you are welcome here and hardly need to be told that you will always have a platform. As for natural or not: there are vaginal tears from penetration, men can get throat cancer from performing oral sex on women - we are people and we learn to adjust. I honestly don't give one toss if gay men want to stick it into each other's ears if it pleases them, is consensual and they take precautions to protect their hearing. As for women fisting - men do it to. That is more an argument against method than practice. The idea of two women having sex doesn't put me out in the slightest. I would rather view it than two men having sex but ultimately they do it for their own pleasure and not mine. If my son or daughter here ever comes home with a same sex partner, I will not bat an eyelid. I would if they brought a preacher in LOL. At least the gay would retire to their room and do what they do. The preacher would want to talk to me about Jesus, Mo or Joe Smith and then it would be glazed eyes time.

John McGirr said...

AM,
Nature will always wreak vengeance on those who undermine it. It is all about purpose, what something is for, its nature. The concept of sin reinforces what is natural for those who believe in it. Grace builds upon nature. That is why it is not a religious question, but as religion deals with reality , they will always reinforce the natural.
Sean,
The point I was making is that any religion will have to hold that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
What would be preposterous is if it were to be declared that anal sex is okay, but adultery is wrong. That just wouldn't add up.
In any case it is pointless arguing about sin with people who don't believe in it.

AM said...

John,

are vets and doctors to be subjected to this vengeance as well given that they continuously intervene in nature and do not allow it to run its course? Grace, sin - may as well talk Latin to me. It has not meaning for me. Although I see you factor that in In any case it is pointless arguing about sin with people who don't believe in it.

What do you think of Abraham's adultery? Religions change all the time - they might not survive otherwise. How long can the Catholic Church hold out on its present course?

sean bres said...

No John, I believe in the forgiveness of sin, and that none of us, as sinners ourselves, are in anyway positioned to judge on such concerns. 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' I say we worry about that and about ourselves first and foremost, none of us are in any state to be judging anyone

larry hughes said...

Mary Marscal

It amuses me no end that many lesbians have a distaste for men but their favourite toy seems to be the 'strapadicktome' plastic appendage. The anal damage you refer too wont go down well here. But you are of course correct.

A lot of the gay rights people have been on tv with weird body piercings, heads half shaved and hair dyed blue etc etc. I honestly believe some of these rainbow warriors have serious personal pain from their own human encounters and experiences. People encounter bastards in every walk of life. Thank God I never found the need to hitch my personally sexual angs or betrayals to the rainbow warrior crusade.

sean bres said...

The Prophet Mohammed knelt to pray when from the corner of his eye he saw a funeral procession. Rising to his feet to pay his respects a follower of his declared, 'but that man was a Jew!' To which the Prophey replied, 'was he not a human being also?'

John McGirr said...

Sean,
You have to recognise something is a sin before you can be forgiven.
The questions are (insofar as you want to use the language of sin),
Is adultery a sin?
Are homosexual acts sins?
My point is that they must either both be recognised as sinful, or neither.
It doesn't make any sense to say that adultery is wrong and homosexuality is okay. I am talking logic here, not religion.
Should we form an 'Adultery Proud' group and devise a flag and tee-shirts? If not why celebrate the wrongness of homosexual acts?

sean bres said...

To begin with I have not celebrating anything but the idea homosexuality is on a par with adultery is outrageous. One is conscious choice and the violation of a vow of trust, the other is something that is not of choice but relates to an individuals being of itself. As far as I'm concerned the message of Jesus is that all are to be accepted for who they are without equivocation, love one another as I have loved you. For Jesus Christ this held true whether it was a prince or a prostitute

AM said...

John,

you have to be talking religion. You use religious concepts such as sin. Otherwise the following portion of your comment makes no sense:

Is adultery a sin?
Are homosexual acts sins?
My point is that they must either both be recognised as sinful, or neither.
It doesn't make any sense to say that adultery is wrong and homosexuality is okay. I am talking logic here, not religion.


It only makes religious sense which not all would see as real sense.

Why it would be logically (not religiously) inconsistent to view homosexuality as wrong but adultery as not wrong? There is no linear logic that I can see. There is a religiously induced logic, even culturally induced if we use a term like unethical rather than sinful.

John McGirr said...

I did not introduce the concept of sin here. Sean said it was preposterous that homosexuality should be a sin. This is a diversion from the rest of the discussion and obviously religion comes into it at that point, once sin has been introduced. All I am saying is that if you want to take a religious view, most religions condemn any sexual relations outside of a married union of man and wife. It is not logical to expect them to say that they only condemn heterosexual relations but not homosexual ones. Surely they must both be condemned in the light of their teachings or neither.
I would not put homosexual relations on a par with adultery. They are unnatural while adultery is natural. Therefore homosexual acts are far worse than adultery. Christ's words were 'go and sin no more'. Not 'go and carry on as before.'

AM said...

John,

regardless of who introduced it, you opted to reason within the category. There is a logic to your argument if we accept the concept of sin and the way those who make up sins structure it. But if you are talking logic not religion as you claimed, you have yet to explain the necessary consistency between the wrongness of adultery and homosexuality. I would argue that such a consistency exists only in the religious mind not the mind of logic (premised on the distinction that you have drawn between the two).

sean bres said...

Let he without sin cast the first stone. Sin is the condition of man - of all men - regardless of rank or station or disposition

John McGirr said...

I was only addressing those who accept the concept of sin. As I said it is a distraction. There is no point in arguing with those who don't. For those who do, homosexual acts must be condemned if you start from the principle that all sexual acts must be in a context of marriage. But this is all a distraction as it is only a point for the minority here. But for that minority, if they condone homosexual acts, they must then abolish sin for all. It wouldn't be an equal state of affairs to say that homosexuals are not bound by the same rules that everyone else is.
The fact that so many people can't see this is a terrible indictment of Catholic teaching. No wonder we have such a rotten Pope, playing to the world and mouthing just what it wants to hear. If I thought he really was the Pope I would leave the Church tomorrow.

AM said...

John,

what I still don't get is your insistence that it was not religion but logic. I am asking you to demonstrate the logic and you tell me it is sinful. But that takes it away from logic and back to religion.

As for religious people, more are coming to the view - and the are living it out - that sex can take place outside marriage. Sean believes there is such a thing as sin but he probably feels homosexual activity is not sinful but that other things are. Why should your view of sin be right and his wrong?

Francis is pope whether you or I like it or not. Does god not appoint these guys in your world and endow them with infallibility? Was the Holy Spirit on the beer and not watching what was going on? Why blame the pope and let the old god fella off the hook?

AM said...

Sean,

I can genuinely say I am without sin. I cannot genuinely say I am without fault: thousands of them, some of them bad I am sure. I live my life this way, in the Orwellian sense: I want to be good, but not too good, and not all the time. Not only is sin a nonsense concept but trying to claim innocent children are born with it is simply revolting. What evil mind thought that one up?

Henry JoY said...

The people have had their say.

No one is obliged to like the expressed will of the people and yet everyone is obliged to respect it

sean bres said...

All much of a muchness Tony, whether we call it sin or fault I'm sure we'd agree we're all afflicted (for want of a better word)

AM said...

and what original fault would every new born arrive in the world with?

John McGirr said...

IF you accept that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sins, (and that is the teaching of the Catholic Church), then it follows that this includes homosexual acts outside of marriage as well as heterosexual acts outside of marriage.

It is a simple case of applying logic to the principle involved.

It would be illogical to say that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sins, unless they are homosexual acts.

This is logic 101 applied to the principle above.

If you don't accept that principle then you will not care one way or the other.

As for who is to say: well let us listen to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

'Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.'

It is not I who is saying this, it is the Catholic Church. We are free to take that teaching or leave it. But at least they are logical in treating all extra-marital sexual activity as sinful.

Henry JoY said...

If one had to create a litmus test to evaluate the degree of subservience to an idol or to an ideal the first measurement would have to relate to the believers willingness to lay down their lives.

If that measurement could not be affected then how better to measure than to require adherents or believers commitment but to require them to forego their sexual impulses?

There's always a huge price to be paid for swallowing indoctrination. Its sad some are too blind to see that.

John McGirr said...

The people have not had their say. The vote was restricted to a part of the nation, and thus irrelevant.

Even if the people of Ireland were to vote for homo marriages it would be meaningless. Two men can no more marry than I could marry a jar of pickles or a packet of peanuts. It is impossible. It takes a man a woman to marry.

If they go through meaningless ceremonies all they will have done is play dress up. What should concern us though is the fact that they will now be looking for children. That is where the joke becomes scary.

AM said...

Poor Mrs McGirr married the biggest pack of peanuts she could find and you didn't complain about that LOL. You did alright out of it.

AM said...

John,

it is irrelevant what the Catholic Church says if we are talking logic rather than religion. And you have made the distinction. Where is the logical necessary consistency between a homosexual act being wrong and adultery being wrong? I can understand a religious perspective holding that both are wrong but that would hardly make it logical.

I think religious adherents are intrinsically disordered not gays.

sean bres said...

The Catholic Church would do better to take a look at itself and its own practices before pontificating to others. My own belief is it should begin by addressing its own depraved relationship with the evil practice of usury. Usury is a method of enslaving whole societies, never mind people. The Vatican is steeped in this practice and is every bit as sick in this regard as the Royal Houses of Europe. These people John are among the most dangerous and predatory sociopaths the world has known. Two people with homosexual tendencies is of little concern to me when set aside this cancerous evil. Take the plank from your own eye as the Good Man once said, the Church should address its own inadequacies before lecturing to anyone

John McGirr said...

AM,
Even if you disagree with something, it is possible to apply logic within it. You seem unable to grasp that. One can be an atheist and apply logic on the principles one holds. This can be, and must be done whatever you are.

I have given the principle, (that the Catholic Church and most other religions see extra marital sexual conduct as wrong). It is a simple matter of logic to see that you cannot at the same time accept that, whilst saying homosexual acts are okay. Logic dictates that either you ditch the principle or you accept that both homosexual acts and heterosexual acts outside of marriage are wrong.

That is logic applied to an ethical principle that underpins the moral teaching of the Church. Even an atheist should be able to see that, whilst rejecting it.

AM said...

Yes, it is possible to see the internal logic of a system one is fundamentally at odds with. But when you say that the point is not religious but logic, then you need to rule out any reference to religion and deal with the logic which you have not done. What you have done is try to find a fusion between the logic and the religion you had initially separated from each other.

John McGirr said...

Sean,
Why am I consistently being accused of judging people, while I have only judged actions? (Aside for a swipe at Papa Bergoglio). In fact, as usual it is those who say 'we cannot judge' who seem to be making all the judgements.
I have only judged actions, not people. That we have to do at every moment of every day.
Saying that adultery is wrong, that murder is wrong, that shop-lifting is wrong is not judging people but acts. So why, when I say that homosexual acts are wrong, am I accused of judging people?
AM
The point of logic was applying the principle that I have done enough times now not to repeat it. That does not preclude me from quoting why my interpretation of a given teaching is correct by giving an authority within that religion. You asked me, I replied by citing an authority.

John McGirr said...

Sean,
Re usury. Thought you might like this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0grvk16NI

larry hughes said...

good to see you and Mr McGirr do the tango again. Mind that back of yours.

sean bres said...

John, I'm not judging you or anyone else but a situation. I've no problem with your beliefs or your right to hold them, I'm referring to the Church and its hypocrisy, not you. I don't mind taking guidance from the priest where it is fair, we share similar concerns about the family and the rights of children to a 'normal' upbringing. I just don't go along with casting people as sinners when the reality is we all are. And I certainly will not defer to the infallibility of a hypocrite institution who is as often removed from the message of Christ as it is on cue. If the 'resignation' of Ratzinger taught us anything surely it is this

AM said...

What a contrast between an overwhelmingly positive democratic vote and the cloth-eared prejudice of the high and cloistered.

AM said...

Robert,

That was generous.

Sean,

Rather than allow your misrepresentation of the discussion to become the record, I opt to set it straight.

The first time I mentioned godly type things was in response to how Ashers had explained their case. They called in their old friend Jesus. That does nothing whatsoever to promote a case and while I wanted to hear the Ashers side of the argument I switched off when that started. That’s why people advise you if you want a seat by yourself on a bus wear a T Shirt that says “Today I am going to talk to you about Jesus.”

The article had been running more than four hours at that point. Larry then sought to introduce the notion of my hating religion. I had expressed nothing in the comments other than having no interest in the religious case for anything. Larry was blinkered by the fact that he was not coming at it from a religious perspective but the entire issue of both referendum and Ashers was steeped in religion.

John McGirr came in to assert it was all hatred of god on my part. The following morning in response to Larry saying it was a chip against religion I asked him if it was unreasonable to expect him to give up beer because somebody told him the unicorn or a zombie thought it a bad thing. First time the unicorn had been mentioned but it was a totally reasonable question given that for atheists, unicorns, gods and zombies all possess the same truth status. That was followed by a bit of back and forth banter with Larry about priests and trannies. By late afternoon I made the point to Wolfsbane that I would listen to religious people making rational arguments but no way would I be listening to them telling me the views of Jesus. The same evening in response to Wolfsbane explaining the Christian take I said “god's law means nothing to me. Nor does the law of the unicorn.” Again a wholly reasonable atheist point in the context of the conversation.

The following day in response to Wolfsbane stating that we all need to be converted by the holy spirit I retorted that “A complete waste of time raising that with me. All gunk as far as I am concerned, not something we are ever going to discuss, any more than we will discuss the flight paths of unicorns.” Perfectly rational atheist position to take.

On Monday, three days into the discussion I said to John McGirr that there are fewer listening to god guff. I think John views the world through a religious lens even when he says he does not. That evening you came in to make your groundless assertions. After that in a bid to defend a hasty dismissal you conjured up cop outs and handy excuses on my part and later went on to make your most inaccurate comment 'You've been waxing mad about religion throughout this debate, about how you'll not be brow-beat by those darn Christians and their demands that you kneel before the flying unicorn.' That was baseless: not once did I “wax mad” or frame it as a “me against them” standoff. My language was quite temperate compared to what else was flying around. Each mention of the unicorn was in response to people talking about their god or holy spirit – which the unicorn is on a par with.

As I said, merely for the record, none of it offends me and on this site we don't have the right to go unoffended. It might mean at times getting called a bollix by a bollix but we'll all live with that, not being the types to be particularly precious about ourselves.

sean bres said...

Sound job, it's not the end of the world so we'll not fall out over it (hopefully). Maybe I worded it wrong in terms of veering towards accusation but nevertheless it's my honest interpretation of how it read

AM said...

Much like last year's snow - of little relevance for today's purposes!

DaithiD said...

AM, you are just a Unuscomudipteraphobe.

(flying unicorn phobia)

AM said...

Top Vatican wanker says Irish same sex vote a “disaster for humanity - I would have thought that a more applicable description of condom denial to Africans to help prevent the spread of AIDS.

Peter said...

What a thread this is. Everything from flying unicorns to lesbian fisting! What is clear is that homophobia and religion go hand in hand and both are utterly irrational.

AM said...

DaithiD,

I have been called worse but not longer

DaithiD said...

Peter, in the context, homophobia and religion go fist in arse.

John McGirr said...

Of course it is a disaster to humanity that the gates are now open to incest, polygamy, the farming of children, the exploitation of the poor throughout the world. What has happened is an utter tragedy. The person that I hold responsible for this is that charlatan in the Vatican. The phony Pope who is busying himself with anything rather than take on the things that matter.

AM said...

blame god - the holy spirit should be sacked. He is not fit for purpose. This pope got in on his watch and the holy spirit fell asleep on god's watch. God's excuse? We can hardly say he was watching gay porn.

DaithiD said...

We can hardly say he was watching gay porn.

If he was AM, it was for purely research purposes, to see who should be turned into pillars of salt etc. Honest.

AM said...

DaithiD,

so unbecoming when you know according to Vatican teaching men are unspeakably evil if they have a penchant for salty pillars.

Michael Craig said...

I gave up watching television a few years ago. Now I've turned off the radio lest it would distract me from the entertainment in the comments section of TPQ.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'The following day in response to Wolfsbane stating that we all need to be converted by the holy spirit I retorted that “A complete waste of time raising that with me. All gunk as far as I am concerned, not something we are ever going to discuss, any more than we will discuss the flight paths of unicorns.” Perfectly rational atheist position to take. '

You imply I raised the issue of conversion - but as I pointed out in reply to your post, "I posted it because you expressed surprise that I was not always a Christian. It was just a brief explanation". That is, it was to show you that one is not born a Christian - conversion is required. A perfectly rational explanation, not a preaching initiative.

John McGirr said...

Did you hear that good old Willie Walsh, is rejoicing over the referendum results. The plague of homosexuals in the clergy is really coming out now. No wonder so many predators among them caused so much damage to Irish society. The 'people' voted against what they thought the Church backed, when in reality the so-called Catholics of Ireland are on the side of the PQ. That is why your bringing religion into it is so wrong, Anthony. The bishops of Ireland, most of the priests and most of the laity are squarely in your camp!
So if you had really wanted to think outside the box, you should have voted NO. The NO vote had little support among Catholics. Even in the occupied 6, I would estimate that 90% of people who think they are Catholics back homosexual marriage. The Catholic Church in Ireland has been dead for a long while.
The FS is now left with the mess of self-destruction, brought about by people who thought they were voting against a Church, while they were in fact hand in hand marching to their oblivion.

Wolfsbane said...

Henry JoY said:
'Sorry Ian, as uncomfortable as you find all of that the law of the land states otherwise and the courts accordingly ruled against Ashers.'

I appreciate that. That's why we have courts of appeal, for judges often get it wrong. I'm glad to see today that Ashers are appealing it.

'If a printing company were to refuse to accept any of your religious propaganda you would have the same recourse to the courts. And I would support your right to do that.'

I also appreciate your fairness in that. All I say to it is that it is a pretty big step away from respect for other's conscience. A lot of secular people are unhappy with the idea of having to publish messages they find abhorrent.

Having said that, if the appeals fail, I can live with it - for it will give Christians access to all sorts of journals and advertising venues. We will be able to get the gospel message right in front of people we might otherwise find difficulty addressing. Anthony's going to reserve me a column of ad space!

AM said...

John, sounds as convoluted as the rest of it unfortunately.

Wolfsbane,

I did not mean to misrepresent you, merely to outline how the exchange progressed. Other things to discuss with you when time permits

larry hughes said...

AM

just to set the record straight regarding my 'N' word blooper. As someone in a mixed race marriage my oversight was not to place the 'N' word in inverted commas. Racism is not a charge that will stand against me. As I said though, I regret any embarrassment this blip caused.

AM said...

Larry,

that is a plausible explanation. I failed to see how you could hold racist views given that I knew you were in a mixed race marriage. The absence of inverts helps clarify matters.

Henry JoY said...

Ian,

I'm happy enough that Ashers have been given right of appeal ... let's wait and see how that unfolds.

Conscientious objection by its nature almost inevitably comes with costs.
I can't imagine how equality legislation could be designed to allow for such objections without undermining exactly what it attempts to address. Perhaps you have some approach or model in mind that wouldn't be chaotic or idiotic?

Anyway I'm heartened to hear that you can live with the appeal failing and that you see proselytising opportunities in such an eventuality. In truth though I don't necessarily see that having to unfold for AM to carry some of your propaganda pieces! I think that if you were to knock that door might be opened unto you. There is precedent here. He carries, if I reading things correctly, lots of propaganda pieces for causes and organisation which he does not personally endorse. So why not yours?

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

Henry Joy is right, but I take it you understood that anyway and were bantering when you said we might carry an ad for you. If you pay us for ad space perhaps it would be a great idea! We have not done "ads" as such (as I understand them) but we have featured a wide variety of flyers and notices from a range of perspectives - we have had loyalists and republicans announce upcoming events on the blog. I can't imagine what you might send us that we would not carry. Although we are not obliged to carry everything you are a regular here and we lean towards airing the views of our regulars, in particular those that don't get an outlet elsewhere. And as HJ suggests how would it be possible for me to share the complete clash of perspectives articulated on this blog at the same time without me actually being a politician claiming to believe all things about everybody if there is a vote in it? Feel free to make your case here in whatever way you feel fit. I am pleased that we can take some credit (or blame!) for enticing you to publish your recent piece on Ashers.

Henry JoY said...

AM,

all credit to the you guys at the quill for providing an open space for the exploration of divergent views. Such editorial policy compels, this reader at least, to regular visits.

Its only through exposure to a wide range of divergent views that outgroup homogeneity tendencies can be overcome and assimilation of a potentially rich diversity facilitated.

Its the diversity of the genetic pool which ensures continuation of a species. Too much inbreeding eventually becomes a liability.

AM said...

at least somebody likes us!

Peter said...

Henry Joy

"...divergent views that outgroup homogeneity tendencies can be overcome and assimilation of a potentially rich diversity facilitated."

Henry, old chap, I love your posts and either agree with or admire most of the positions you take but this language is much too wooly for an non-academic forum. If you don't wise the bap I'll send the Campaign for Plain English after you.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony said:
'Although we are not obliged to carry everything'

Thanks for the already generous provision to contribute here!

But this quote is the nub of the issue - the court ruling has it that those who provide cakes and ads MUST carry everything that is legal. 'Support Gay Marriage' is a lawful statement; so too would be 'Don't Support Gay Marriage'; so too would be 'Support a United Ireland; as would 'Support a British Ulster'; 'Support the Tory Cuts; 'Stop the Tory Cuts; etc.

So would you accept and ad that said, for example:

'Good News! God accepts repentant sinners and makes them saints!
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.'

Wolfsbane said...

And Henry, should anyone have the right to refuse my ad, if Ashers were wrong in refusing the gay cake?

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

we are not obliged to carry everything. How could we be? Where would we find the time? We are a voluntary blog. I am free to pick and choose what I carry. That I carry just about everything is because I can not because I must.

As I said I can think of nothing that you would write that we would not carry including your biblical citation above. We carried it today for you albeit in question form. If you came every day asking for it to be carried we would not but you would be treated no differently from anybody else there. We would simply tell you to pick another verse, that one has had its place already.

If I was to refuse you that verse and allow one that say Mick Hall or Tommy McKearney sent from the bible that gelled with Liberation theology, I would be clearly guilty of discriminating against you.

I would have thought that this should all have been pretty clear to you by now given the amount of time you have been at TPQ.

AM said...

Wolfsbane,

in respect of the question you asked HenryJoy, a blog can always refuse given that it is not in the economic marketplace. Because this blog would not refuse your ad does not mean others would have to carry it. Generally, I take a view that the only people who have a "right" to be heard here insofar as we can determine it are those who have been criticised and should have a right to reply. But we are under no obligation to take any thing just thrown our way. That we do in practice is another matter! And as we can see from some of this morn's comments on the John Coulter piece, people would question the wisdom of what we do.

Wolfsbane said...

Anthony, sorry I did not make myself clearer. Note that I used the qualifier, 'those who provide cakes and ads'. That is, IF you were providing a service (a printer, a cake decorator, a publisher who took ads), should you be obliged to take the one I presented?


«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»