107 2 mins 9 yrs

dd869c0dcee2857cb939d6664879fc4cf074ea541b8145f4dcdec8c6c2ce4983

I noticed that this huge demonstration in Paris against gay marriage went without much coverage in the UK!

“Paris riot police fought back crowds who pushed their way onto Paris’ landmark Champs-Elysees avenue today as part of a huge protest against a draft law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. Up to 300,000 people – conservative activists, children, retirees, priests – converged on the capital in a last-ditch bid to stop the bill, many bussed in from the French provinces. The lower house of France’s parliament approved the ‘marriage for everyone’ bill last month with a large majority, and it’s facing a vote in the Senate next month.

The Socialists are ramming this legislation through and to hell with what the people think.

“In an indication of the sensitivity of the issue, protesters had been barred from marching on the Champs.  Christine Boutin, leader of the French Christian Democratic Party, was pictured lying on the ground in the Champs-Elysees, after being teargased by police during the demonstration.  Last year she said that she remained strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and claimed that it would lead to polygamy…”

FRANCE-GAY-MARRIAGE-LAW-DEMONSTRATION

 

Gay marriage uber alles.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

107 thoughts on “GAY PARIS?

  1. Did you read the article?

    Thousands of French conservatives, families and activists took part in the demonstration against the new law

    Many people were bussed in from the provinces to try and boost numbers before the protest turned violent

    A protestor appears to throw a traffic cone at a line of riot police during the demonstration

    Hmmmmmm, ‘Conservative activists’ using violence against the police? say it aint so! No doubt provoked by ‘heavy handed policing’. The quotes above read like a mirror image of riots demonstrations closer to home.

    Christine Boutin sat slumped on the ground after clashing with police. Last year she said that she remained strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and claimed that it would lead to polygamy

    I wonder have her nonsensical claims changed from last year?

  2. I would have thought that “children, retirees, priests” would be demonstrating in favour of “marriage for everyone”.

  3. “I would have thought that “children, retirees, priests” would be demonstrating in favour of “marriage for everyone”.

    Well you’re wrong Noel, aren’t you?

    Oh I forgot. You’re never wrong.. 🙂

    When I worked with (abused) kids in residential care not one child ever wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple, and being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..
    “Old fart or old bastard was considered perfectly acceptable for me though..

  4. Conservative activists?

    Leftists suddenly in favour of more police brutality shocka.

  5. Life must be great in France if they have nothing more important to complain or riot about than the shock horror fact that gay couples might be allowed to marry.

    Oh my God they are going to have the same rights as us. How appalling. To the barricades !

  6. Colm,
    In all reasonableness, gays have the same rights but not the same abilities as heterosexuals.
    Being boring and repetitive, no matter how much they love each other two people of the same sex cannot naturally produce children. There has to be a third, a sleeping partner in order for that to happen.
    A man and a woman can (usually) produce offspring and ideally serve as opposite sex role models. That is what is traditionally understood as marriage.
    You have civil partnerships, just as 22 years ago my wife and I as divorcees had our marriage in a registry office (wanna see the pictures?!)
    We love each other. We attend church and we don’t throw our teddies out of the pram because we can’t be remarried in a church.
    No big deal.

  7. Colm – is your ultimate aim the right for gays to be ‘married’ in a Church?

  8. Two people of the same sex cannot naturally produce children

    I don’t see your point as obviously neither can two people of different sexes with fertility problems?

  9. “I don’t see your point as obviously neither can two people of different sexes with fertility problems?”

    Look around you Paul.
    Obviously -VERY obviously, enough don’t.

    I didn’t have kids because of fertility problems.
    Is it my RIGHT to have them?
    Of course not.

  10. Is it my RIGHT to have them?
    Of course not

    I still don’t see the point that you’re trying to make. Is anyone suggesting that it’s a gay couples right to adopt kids?

  11. Paul,
    How do you suppose the human race managed to get us thus far?
    Since humans have been created, men have wondered why women don’t have willies. It didn’t take them long to discover a use for what women do have.
    Men cannot have babies
    Women by contrast are biologically and emotionally suited to giving birth and nurturing babies.
    Over time most humans found that this whole process works best as where love, respect and commitment are included.
    Most men are incapable of coping with more than one woman. Most women only want one man.
    This works well if each partner does their best to give 100% to that relationship.

    As far as I know (and there may be exceptions), but no established society has gone along with the idea of two people of the same sex adopting children as a married couple..

    So I am not talking about gay couples adopting children (although I don’t agree with it), I am talking about gay marriage.

  12. Allan

    NO – Churches should never be compelled to marry any couple if they choose not to. Same goes for baptisms and funerals.

  13. So I am not talking about gay couples adopting children (although I don’t agree with it), I am talking about gay marriage

    So why did you bring the child factor into it when people who are married have and don’t have children and people who are not married have and don’t have children?

    Two people of the same sex cannot naturally produce children

    If you are making an argument based on your personal moral / sociological objections that’s fair enough don’t dress it up in a biological argument.

  14. Well you’re wrong Noel, aren’t you?

    Oh I forgot. You’re never wrong..

    He thought he was at one time, but then realised he had made an error 😉

  15. Paul,
    I am up and down from the loft sorting duvets.(We have guests over Easter).
    I am now thoroughly confused about
    a) what you think I am saying and
    b) your response!
    Sorry Paul.
    If you would like to clarify or tell me off for being dozy, go ahead!

  16. Harri,
    you are becoming one of our resident wags/wits. Colm of course being numero uno.

    btw.
    I did a joke for you after your Irish one.
    If you don’t like those kind of jokes just say so.
    It’s daft me laboriously tapping them out if you don’t appreciate them, and there are still some people on this site I try not to annoy. You are one of them. 🙂
    If on the other hand you thought the joke was crap say so. I won’t be offended.

  17. Agit

    Please do not ever fret about causing me any offence, I try not to take offence, and no-one wil take any offence on my behalf .. I am white and English 😉

    No righteous points to be had see.

  18. “It was crap ;-)”

    Well blow you then!
    That’s the last joke I ever do for you, you ungrateful wretch!
    🙂

  19. Agit8ed – Do you take the position that heterosexual couples who can not reproduce due to fertility issues (or age) can not marry?

  20. “Well blow you then!”

    “Do you take the position”

    This thread is becoming pure smut 😉

  21. It is no longer a matter of will gay marriage be recognized, but when. The State simply can not unjustly discriminate against a group merely on the basis of someone’s relgious views or distaste for a particular group of people.

  22. This thread is becoming pure smut 😉

    Yep, and I am about to make it worse … and possibly complicated.

    If Buggery is illegal, how do gay men getaway with it?

    Just a thought.

    Sodomy 1st degree is illegal in the States I do believe.

  23. Harri – if you are asking if homosexual sexual acts are a crime or prosecuted in the US the answer is no.

  24. Mahons,
    “Agit8ed – Do you take the position that heterosexual couples who can not reproduce due to fertility issues (or age) can not marry?”

    ???????
    Gotta be a trick question.
    Go back a few generations Mahons, before ultrasound scans. Before living together was generally accepted.
    How would a couple KNOW whether they could have children or not?
    Please explain.

    Contrary to Petrkin’s propaganda that marriage was all about the transfer of wealth, most ordinary people were monogamous couples going back hundreds of years. (Check out any UK churchyard).
    I know that “liberal, amoral, sophisticated, knowing people” like to say marriage is a relatively new institution, but it’s not. God instituted it, Moses talks about it and all around the world in one form or another marriage, as in one man and one woman has been recognised as a basic unit of society. When people entered into these unions children were the usual outcome.

    Of course you will now argue that because I accept that sometimes people don’t have children (as in my case), therefore the main reason people marry is for love. Therefore if two people love each other why shouldn’t they marry?
    Therefore why shouldn’t two men marry?
    Or two women?

    So, firstly God says its wrong for two people of the same sex to marry. That you shouldn’t lie with another person of the same sex.

    Secondly as I mentioned at 10:07
    “When I worked with (abused*) kids in residential care not one child ever wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple, and being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..”

    *as in buggered children, as in boys and girls passed around to family and friends for sex and buggery, as in babies used for sex,and little infants needing corrective surgery..

    Even children like this still want mums and dads to love them. Unless they are so small they don’t understand what’s going on, they don’t usually want two mums or two dads.

  25. ” The State simply can not unjustly discriminate against a group merely on the basis of someone’s relgious views or distaste for a particular group of people.”

    That’s more like it. Until fairly recently western nations were guided mainly by the Catholic or Protestant version of Christianity.
    Now we live in a post Christian society the State cannot judge on moral grounds shaped by religion, so it does what it thinks is in the best interests of society.

  26. Colm, on March 26th, 2013 at 7:07 PM Said:
    Harri

    It’s legal but it’s not compulsory

    LOL

  27. Harri – Colm gave the perfect answer. However, for further clarification, the term buggery isn’t one used in the US.

    Agit8ed – Could you try to make a point per comment as opposed to stream of conscious wandering paragraphs?

    I will endeavor to answer none the less:

    1. it is not a trick question, it is quite simple. You claim homosexuals shoudl not marry because they can not reproduce. The same can be said for many heterosexual couples, yet you don’t seek to have the state prohibit their marriage.
    2. Are you under the impression that people could not tell if they could have children only recently? While our medical ability to determine it is more advanced, people could tell if they were capable of reproduction soem time ago.
    3. God said? Where you present when he said this, or is it just hearsay? No one says your religion has to perform gay weddings, merely that it can’t stop others who do not subscribe to your religion from performing gay weddings.
    4. There are plenty of children who have been happily adopted by gay couples. Your limiting the range of experience to your own is limited.

  28. I am sure I have said many times now there should be a separation between Church and State.
    So where religious values and state values coincide it’s good, where they don’t the Catholic or Protestant must be guided by their faith.
    As the New Testament tells us to obey our rulers and pray for them it’s not usually a problem. But where the State wants you to do something against your faith you have to choose.
    Things are further complicated because Christians (and other faiths) are members of a democratic society, so have a responsibility to be involved and have an opinion, and work for the general good of society.

  29. Agit8ed – Actually in my nation there was no desire to establish a state Church, hence the freedom of religion which included freedom from religion.

    A wiser person than me has written that the opposition to gay marriage essentially breaks down to either tradition or bigotry. Neither is a good basis in and of itself for establishing law.

  30. Agit8ed – No one is saying you have to marry a man, attend a gay wedding or be happy they take place. What we are saying is that you can’t let your interpretation of Christianity dictate what other people can do. That is the road to a theocracy.

  31. I am not gay, I am as straight as one could possibly be living with 5 females (six if you include the mother outlaw).. and I was not ‘allowed’ to marry in a Catholic church.

    Because I was not a Catholic

    Are they bigoted against me?

  32. Mahons,
    “people could tell if they were capable of reproduction soem time ago.”

    HOW!
    if they weren’t having sex, how could they tell? Are you saying that people went around having sex outside of/before marriage to check their equipment worked and that they were therefore eligible for marriage? How does that fit in with the ideal of them both being virgins?

    “God said?”
    You keep leaving out the Christian dimension! I believe that marriage was instituted by God and was always between one man and one woman. I thought you were some kind of Catholic?
    I said before that you were disillusioned about Catholicism, then you said I was wrong. So what the heck are you? If you’ve been in/confirmed/a member of a Catholic Church you must know what the Church teaches?

  33. Harri – I think you are confusing state recogntion of who can marry by law and a particular faith’s recognition of its own doctrine of who can marry.

  34. I am not gay, I am as straight as one could possibly be..

    Methinks Harri does profess too much 😉

  35. ” What we are saying is that you can’t let your interpretation of Christianity dictate what other people can do.”

    As long as the Church of England is the state religion of the United Kingdom I can argue my case.
    If the Church of England is NOT now the State religion then we must also do away with the Queen as the Defender of the Faith and many of our great offices of State and become a republic.
    I am not arguing for a theocracy, I don’t believe in them. I am arguing from a position of faith and as a concerned citizen who doesn’t believe these proposed changes are good for society, that’s all.

  36. Agit8ed

    Nonsense. Even if we disestablish the CofE that doesn’t mean we have to abolish the Monarchy. The Queen has more roles than just being head of the state church.

  37. Colm

    Look once and for all, and for the record

    I am NOT gay, but i do believe my boyfriend might be 😉

    True Mahons, but I did not cause a song & dance about it, and demand a change in the Law, then again, I have no wish to have the ‘State’ anywhere near me.

  38. Colm

    I have started to stop and browse for long periods of time in shoe shops 😉

    I blame the rest of the family for that one.

  39. Agit8ed – Doctors have been studying fertility for centuries (although they’ve got much more accurate now). Certainly a 60 year old women would not be considered fertile yet still able to marry. And should we require those who discover they are infertile after marriage get divorced? of course not.

    I leave out the Christian dimension because it is not relevant to civil marriage. And it it not one dimension. You are still free to believe that God has told you that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.

    I personally happen to be Catholic, and I am in fact disillusioned with aspects of my Church’s teachings, which I think they are wrong on some issues and right on others. I doubt there is a Catholic, including the Pope, who doesn’t have some issues with some things within the Church.

  40. HArri – But the change you would have demanded in the law would have been to compel the Catholic Church to marry you. They aren’t compelled to marry gay people either. If the State prevented you from marrying, I assume you would in fact cause a song and dance.

  41. “A wiser person than me has written that the opposition to gay marriage essentially breaks down to either tradition or bigotry. Neither is a good basis in and of itself for establishing law.”

    “A wiser person than me”
    Wow! How modest you are Mahons.

    How about collective human experience?
    Please list for me from the year dot, the cultures you know of that formally recognised gay marriage as equivalent to, or accepted alongside heterosexual marriage.
    If they can’t/couldn’t produce children, what would be the point of calling it marriage?
    List them please..

  42. They aren’t compelled to marry gay people either. If the State prevented you from marrying, I assume you would in fact cause a song and dance.

    They might have done me a favour 😉

    For once.

  43. “I personally happen to be Catholic, and I am in fact disillusioned with aspects of my Church’s teachings, which I think they are wrong on some issues and right on others. I doubt there is a Catholic, including the Pope, who doesn’t have some issues with some things within the Church.”

    You’re either a “pick ‘n mixer*” who still regularly attends, or you don’t often attend and don’t like to admit that you doubt so much of basic Christian doctrine that you might as well not bother.

    *we have those in the CofE. Personally I think they do more harm than good, because they’re constantly trying to make the church more “accepting and relevant..”

  44. “Agit8ed – Doctors have been studying fertility for centuries (although they’ve got much more accurate now). Certainly a 60 year old women would not be considered fertile yet still able to marry. And should we require those who discover they are infertile after marriage get divorced? of course not.”

    Who the heck’s saying they should?!

    They may have been studying infertility for centuries, but they were mostly studying why married women weren’t having children!

  45. Agi, you do realise that,

    ‘ God instituted it…’

    and

    ‘ I believe that marriage was instituted by God…’

    are two very different things?

    In fact, thay are as different as

    ‘So, firstly God says its wrong for two people of the same sex to marry. That you shouldn’t lie with another person of the same sex.’

    to

    ‘It’s written in the Bible’

    Also, why did you write this?

    ‘“When I worked with (abused*) kids in residential care not one child ever wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple, and being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..”
    *as in buggered children, as in boys and girls passed around to family and friends for sex and buggery, as in babies used for sex,and little infants needing corrective surgery..
    Even children like this still want mums and dads to love them. Unless they are so small they don’t understand what’s going on, they don’t usually want two mums or two dads.’

    It looks dangerously like you’re equating sexual abuse in children with Homosexuality.

    Are you?

  46. Agit8ed- Neither of your characterizations of my invovlement with my Church is true, but that doesn’t stop you from alleging them despite your professed Christianity.

    Here is the thing, we have civil laws that are not subject to the doctrines of one faith.

  47. Seimi,

    I don’t believe you people sometimes!
    I was trying to point out (but it’s bleedin’ obvious from what I wrote, and also that you have never seen me hint at what you are asking) that in my experience and the experience of many others who work with damaged abused children, yjayt they would still wish to keep their biological parents preferably without the abuse, and secondly that if they are old enough to understand the situation they don’t want to be adopted or fostered by two mummies or two daddies.
    How difficult is that to understand?

  48. It’s not too difficult to understand when you put it like that. How you originally put it read differently to me. It still does.

    What you wrote in your 8.28 applies fully and only to the last 2 lines of what you originally wrote, not to the first bit about ‘abused kids’ who never ‘ wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple, and being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot.’

    ‘I don’t believe you people sometimes!’

    Eh?

  49. Mahons,

    I really don’t care what kind of Catholic you say you are. Just decide! There’s nothing wrong with having questions of faith. I do. But I don’t question the basics of the faith, and where I have problems I will find a devout Protestant and share my problems and doubts.
    Now if I question the existence of God,
    The person of Jesus, the Virgin Birth,Sin and Salvation, and an afterlife I might as well not bother. Because at the end of the day God is not a Catholic or a Protestant, or a Baptist or a Quaker. He is what he reveals himself to be through the Bible. If you don’t like it, reject it. Better an unbeliever than a hypocrite.

    “Here is the thing, we have civil laws that are not subject to the doctrines of one faith.”

    Who’s arguing with you? I am arguing my case as a Christian and citizen. I am allowed to do that am I not?
    Now off you go and write that list of cultures..

  50. Agit8ed

    Children want to be brought up by parents who love and cherish them and give them a happy safe home. If in some cases those parents happen to be same sex, the children will love them as the family unit they are. What matters is how people behave and how that affects the people in their lives not whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

  51. Colm,
    Believe it or believe it not, I do understand where you are coming from and the kast thing I want to do is insult or upset you in any way.
    I am arguing from a Christian pov and as a member of a democratic society.
    I am not trying to force my views on anyone, but to argue them in a reasoned way.
    So as I say my wife and I have fostered children.
    We have worked with looked after children and abused looked after children.
    What I am saying is that in our experience and other people we know, children old enough to understand prefer to be looked after or adopted by a heterosexual couple.
    That’s all.

  52. Seimi,
    here it is at 7:13
    “Even children like this still want mums and dads to love them. Unless they are so small they don’t understand what’s going on, they don’t usually want two mums or two dads.”
    But in any case you have never read a comment by me that hints at or says that homosexuality and abuse of children go together!
    Either we read what each other says or it’s in one ear and out the other.

  53. Agit8ed

    Stop worrying about potentially upsetting or insulting me – you are not doing so at all. The only way you could do that is by ignoring me 😉

    You should always argue your case with conviction and without fear or favour.

  54. Yes, Agi, I read that and understood it perfectly.

    I’m not accusing you of hinting, saying or shouting from the rooftops that homosexuality and abuse of children go together. However, when you wrote this

    ‘“When I worked with (abused*) kids in residential care not one child ever wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple, and being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..”
    *as in buggered children, as in boys and girls passed around to family and friends for sex and buggery, as in babies used for sex,and little infants needing corrective surgery..

    it looked like you might be hinting at it a bit, especially when you included the line

    ‘being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..’

    after writing

    ‘When I worked with (abused*) kids in residential care not one child ever wanted to be fostered or adopted by a gay couple…’

    However, as you rightly say, you have never, as far as I know, hinted at a direct connection between the two. Please accept my apologies if you thought that was what I was saying about you. I wasn’t.

  55. Agit8ed – As to myself I don’t have to decide, I know.

    Your argument here boils down to your version of Christianity. Which you can still practice if the State permits gay marriage.

    As for cultures that accept it historically, the answer is most likely none. Humanity evolves. Slavery is no longer accepted, child labor laws improve, women’s rights (still a recent development) improve etc.

  56. “‘being called a gaylord was guaranteed to start a riot..’

    That was by way of illustrating that even sexually abused children don’t like being called gay, and if they are old enough to understand would prefer to be fostered or adopted by a heterosexual single or couple.
    Link THAT up with me asking Mahons for evidence of past societies who recognised gay marriage, and perhaps you will get what I have been saying….

    PS
    I could care LESS about upsetting you! I wasn’t addressing you, I was talking to Colm.
    I was in the Merchant Navy. I lived alongside gays, I worked with gays. It is my personal experience that not many of them actually are.
    But they are human beings just like me and I have no wish to offend.

  57. The state confers specific financial benefits and legal protections to civil marriages that are not extended to other couples, it is simply unfair to singularly exclude homosexual couples from participating in these particular benefits and protections.

    I do try to understand why some religious people get all worked up over this issue, but unless they’d like to forgo state sanction, benefits and protection for their own marriages, they need to stop denying gay couples the same civil rights straight families have always taken for granted.

    There are already plenty of christian denominations performing same-sex marriage ceremonies in their churches, why would a gay couple want to force a hostile church featuring a pissed off pastor to host their all-important wedding day? It sounds like a hellish way to start a marriage.

  58. ‘I know I do upset/annoy people, but I actually prefer not to.’

    ‘I could care LESS about upsetting you!’

    Charming.

  59. “Humanity evolves.”
    Humanity changes,
    So you concede the point I was making?

    “Your argument here boils down to your version of Christianity. Which you can still practice if the State permits gay marriage.”

    Sorry Buster, but Catholicism believes the same as I do on this issue. No branch of Christianity has a monopoly on doctrinal truth, but if you can’t accept even the basics then you’re better off out of it and the church is better off without you.
    There is always room for an honest doubter in the Church, but a religious social conformer causes real problems.
    My view is that God sees right through us, and if one day I am going to give him an account of my actions, why pretend?

  60. “I do try to understand why some religious people get all worked up over this issue, but unless they’d like to forgo state sanction, benefits and protection for their own marriages, they need to stop denying gay couples the same civil rights straight families have always taken for granted.”

    Read all the posts Daphne.
    Read ’em and (unlike Seimi) inwardly digest them.

    I am tired now of discussing it.

  61. I’ve read ’em, Agi.

    I don’t have a quibble with your religious beliefs and I don’t take issue with any religion refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

    I do have a problem when religious activists and activist churches insist on state policy conforming to their particular set of religious beliefs. Feel free to religiously discriminate in your own house or house of worship, but don’t expect the rest of us to tolerate that sort of unnecessary discrimination by a tax-payer supported, democratically elected state.

  62. Daphne,

    “I do have a problem when religious activists and activist churches insist on state policy conforming to their particular set of religious beliefs.

    I answered that one at 7:26pm.

  63. I know you did and wasn’t accusing you of any such behavior or intent.

    I don’t know how closely you follow american politics, but assuming you don’t, we have a very active, well-funded, particularly strident, politically powerful multi-denomination religious coalition of professional christianists who insert themselves into all public social policy debates.

    They insist on modern government conformance with old testament biblical tenets. I really don’t like these people interfering with state policy matters and while I accept their right to lobby, I wish their nanny-state, busy-body, finger-wagging influence was next to negligible.

    Unfortunately, it’s not.

  64. ‘Read ‘em and (unlike Seimi) inwardly digest them.’

    I did read them. I’m not sure what ‘inwardly digest’ means, but I studied what you wrote and how you wrote it, then asked a question based on what you wrote.

    When you made it clear that what I had asked was not what you were saying, I apologised if my question had suggested something which was not true.

    I then attempted to make a humuorous comment about something else you wrote, to show there was no bad feelings between us, and got the extremely rude answer that you could ‘care LESS’ about upsetting me. Hardly the Christian thing to do…

    Still, if that’s how you feel, fine.

  65. Daphne

    Thankfully that is one element of American politics that hasn’t taken off here, although we do have attampts by religous groups to do so, but in the main we have no big powerful organised religous/political movements here. Abortion is not remotely a big political issue here and the attitude of most people to plans to legalise Gay marraige is quite correctly a big YAWN.

  66. Daphne,
    I know you’re not.
    The problem in a democracy is that for it to flourish we all must play our part.
    If I am taxed I also have a voice, regardless of my convictions.
    So I don’t expect to see a Christian society. It’s not going to happen in this world. Christians of all shapes and varieties are called to be salt and light. We should want what is best for society and where we disagree with the prevailing opinion, argue our case.
    The major role of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel and show His love in practical ways.

    Did you ever catch my response to your Merav Michaeli post?.

  67. Seimi,
    “I then attempted to make a humuorous comment about something else you wrote, to show there was no bad feelings between us, and got the extremely rude answer that you could ‘care LESS’ about upsetting me. Hardly the Christian thing to do…

    Still, if that’s how you feel, fine.”
    I thought you said at 9:07 I couldn’t upset you?
    Have you changed your mind now? 😉
    I apologise. I thought it was a joke.

  68. ‘I thought you said at 9:07 I couldn’t upset you?’

    Who said I was upset? You were the one who got narky.

    Oíche mhaith, Agi. Codladh sámh 🙂

    (That’s not an ancient Gaelic curse by the way. I just said – Good night, Agi. Sleep well 🙂 )

  69. Sorry Paul.
    If you would like to clarify or tell me off for being dozy, go ahead!

    I’ll clarify Agi;

    If you’re basing your objections on religious principles that fair enough, by all means go ahead and argue your point based on your convictions. You seem to have introduced the biological point about gay couples not being able to reproduce as some kind of oblique reference to strenghten your point regarding your objection to ‘gay marriage’.

    I really can’t understand what reproduction has to do with an argument as to why the state shiuld / shouldn’t perform civil ceremonies to same sex couples?

    As you state here;

    Of course you will now argue that because I accept that sometimes people don’t have children (as in my case), therefore the main reason people marry is for love. Therefore if two people love each other why shouldn’t they marry?
    Therefore why shouldn’t two men marry?
    Or two women?
    So, firstly God says its wrong for two people of the same sex to marry. That you shouldn’t lie with another person of the same sex

    If your God says it’s wrong and that’s okay with you what has reproduction got to do with it?

  70. Well Colm, y’all are several hundred years advanced on our relatively new effort at governing a liberal democracy. It gives me hope that some of our more vocal religious extremists can be tamed give time, while also giving me worry that other god-bothering theists will gain a prominent voice of political influence.

    Religion should be a private matter that wise states would do best to ignore as much as possible.

  71. Agit8ed – In the end all you have is your religious objections, objections which aren’t even held by all Christians. And you say you are ok with separation of Church and State. You want a theocracy.

  72. Mahons, I think he’s a little bit confused on how to work out the state matter given his sincere in his beliefs.

    He’s rude, unpleasant, godcentric and likes Troll, but he’s actually been pretty reasonable on this issue if you can blow past the wind of religious bombast and gratuitous personal insults.

  73. Seimi or anyone who knows some Irish: There is an Irish word that sounds like
    “ah na wah”. It means something like ‘brilliant’ as in ‘job well done’ — do you know the word? I’ve heard people use it while giving a thumbs up or high five.
    GRMA!

  74. mairin2 – It’s actually 2 words – an-mhaith. It means ‘very good’. The prefix ‘an’ is like an ‘amplifier’, eg an-ocrach (very hungry)

    Depending on where you are in Ireland, the pronunciation can differ. Judging by your phonetical spelling, you have probably heard Munster people saying it, although Connaught speakers would sometimes pronounce it similarily.

    In Leinster it could be ‘an-ah-vah’, and in Ulster ‘an-why’

    Not to be biaised, but the Ulster pronunciation is probably the closest to being the correct one, as it recognises that there is a slender ‘i’ in the word 🙂

  75. Wow, you’re good. I first heard it in Waterford County on that peninsula where Youghal is located at some little pub along the road and then I saw an Irish teacher use it with kindergarten students. I think she was from Dublin (D-4 type but fluent in Irish). Thank you—I’ve been trying to figure that out for the longest time.
    Every summer I’m tempted to go to the Donegal Irish ‘camp’ for adults…;-)

  76. and I’m just realizing why I should have figured that out…the mh makes the W sound…like when I’m called ‘wareen’ when mairin is ainm dom. It really is very phonetic once you remember the sound combinations.

  77. ‘Wow, you’re good.’

    All the rumours are true 😉

    In a previous job in Irish language development, I had the pleasure of travelling all over the country (several times more than several!), and heard every accent, colloquialism, and vernacular there was to be heard. But, something like an-mhaith is pretty easy, as it is quite provincial.

    ‘Every summer I’m tempted to go to the Donegal Irish ‘camp’ for adults…;-)’

    Is this with Oideas Gael, in Glencolumkille (or Gleann Choilm Cille, as it should be spelled)? If so, I would heartily recommend it. A beautiful part of the country, with very friendly locals, and great pubs 🙂

    Unless it’s some other type of Irish ‘camp’ for adults, in which case I’ll leave it to Colm to make some jokes about it 🙂

  78. The reason you are called ‘wareen’ in Irish is because of the Vocative Case, which is used primarily to address people.

    The name is preceded by ‘a’, and is then aspirated (has a ‘h’ inserted) where possible (l, n, r, are the usual exceptions).

    So you would say – Máirín is ainm dom (Mairin is my name), but if somebody called you, they would say, ‘A Mháirín’ – Ah Wareen.

    The names Ian and Hamish in Scotland are good examples of this. They are actually Seán (John) and Séamus (James), used in the Vocative – ‘A Sheáin’, and ‘A Shéamuis’ 🙂

  79. Yes, Oideas Gael. I’ve been in the area before…so many funny stories to tell and so many sheep! It was one of the best New Year’s I ever had…we stayed in a tiny town beyond Glen Choilm Ciile (coming from Derry) that had a pub called Bridies (one or two buildings made up the town) and there was a life-size statue of Jesus in the ladies. Scared the @#$*! out of me when I flipped the light switch. So many good memories.
    Now I’m getting excited about trying to learn Irish again.

  80. Yes, Oideas Gael. I’ve been in the area before…so many funny stories to tell and so many sheep! It was one of the best New Year’s I ever had…we stayed in a tiny town beyond Glen Choilm Ciile (coming from Derry) that had a pub called Bridies (one or two buildings made up the town) and there was a life-size statue of Jesus in the ladies. Scared the @#$*! out of me when I flipped the light switch. So many good memories.
    Now I’m getting excited about trying to learn Irish again.

  81. Seimi, your credentials far exceed those of the Irish teachers I’ve had; very impressive…I’ve only taken community-education type classes. Go raibh maith agat.

  82. Well, Mahons…do you think David would sponsor an Irish language section on his blog? May one night a week…;-)

  83. The town you were in is Gleann Choilm Cille, and the pub is Biddie’s – Biddie’s at the crossroads to give it its local English name (Biddie’s a’ Chrois-bhealaigh in Irish).

    I’ve spent many s a great night in there.

    The Oideas Gael course is one of the best and most enjoyable in the country. Liam Ó Flannagáin, who runs it, is a great guy.

    If you’re serious about attending one of the courses, contact me through David. I might be able to help you out with the booking.

    And now, to appease Mahons – I support gay marriage 🙂

  84. ‘Well, Mahons…do you think David would sponsor an Irish language section on his blog? May one night a week…;-)’

    I heard David had signed up to Líofa 2015 – an initiative to create 1000 new fluent Irish speakers by the year 2015…

    What do ye think, David? 😉

  85. Mairin2- I am sure I strain his tolerance level enough as it is without my suggesting an Irish Language night.

    Seimi – Thank you, I am appeased.

  86. Haha–you know more about where I was than I do myself…too funny. We drove in circles for hours trying to get to the ancient fort??? We never made it but we did climb up a cliff to a cave above the sea. By the time we left the cave, the tide had come in and we were forced to wade to shore in freezing cold, rough water. Yes…Biddies…seisiuns…I will go back.

  87. You were up around Slieve League (Sliabh Liag), and below you was Cathaoir an Rí (The King’s Chair). The area is outstandingly beautiful, with plenty of old forts, neolithic sites and much more. Around 10 years ago (possibly more), a pair of Golden Eagles were released in the area, to see if they would flourish. I’m not sure how they fared. I know that the poachers were out in their droves, hoping to steal any eggs they may have produced.

    I love the west coast of Donegal. Nowadays I only get there every year or two, but a while back, I would have been there 6 or 7 times a year.

  88. I am serious about Oideas Gael. I need to talk to a friend first…we always talk about doing the Irish camp.

  89. Wow, you’re good.

    Mairin, as he’s a former teacher of mine I have to agree.

    Guys – this is about gay marriage

    Absolutely correct. He’s not a bad teacher either 😉

  90. Daphne,
    “Mahons, I think he’s a little bit confused on how to work out the state matter given his sincere in his beliefs.”

    I really don’t think I am!
    In a democracy I will accept the majority decision. I am not trying to force my views on anyone, or insisting that society must obey Christian values.
    I am one person explaining my views on Gay marriage from my personal faith point of view and then as a tax paying citizen in a democratic society.

    Which is why with my citizen’s hat on, I have been asking Mahons for evidence from history that gay marriage has ever been accepted or formally recognised in any culture. I don’t think it is a good move, but if society decides the politicians agree with minority groups and the majority of people display their usual apathy, then it will go through.

    To argue that because increased tolerance and scientific advances we should now welcome it seems rather shaky grounds for abandoning accumulated human wisdom/experience, and flies in the face of the view expressed by many of you that it has taken evolution millions of years to get us to the male female reproductive stage -including all that goes with that in terms of nurturing.
    But I am not demanding anything. I thought we were debating the subject.

Comments are closed.