Media telling lies to discredit pro-family Bush

by R. Isible Tue Jul 26, 2005 03:50

Harry writes: "1. How many Iraqis died per day BEFORE THE INVASION, ie under Saddam Hussein."

And I've got to wonder, were you asleep Harry when Denis Halliday resigned in protest over the number of deaths that were occurring due to UN (e.g. Ireland, France, U.K., U.S.A, etc) sanctions that murdered over 500,000 children and were specifically enforced by UK and US plane bombings?

Let's be clear: Saddam Hussein would not have been in power without the assistance of the CIA and would not have been sustained in power without the co-operation of the West up until the point where he invaded Kuwait. Then the West happily starved civilians. Bush is a part of this strategy as was his father.

If you see that as "pro-family" then I'm glad you're not in my family.

by Pro-peace Tue Jul 26, 2005 04:32

I don't know much about the statistics of this. But I fail to see how an organisation, supposedly in favour of the family, can be in favour of war. Whatever the true figures are, the people who have died in this illegal war were all member of families. I don't see how any warmonger such as Bush can be "pro-life and pro-family" when he has the blood of all those people on his hands.

This so called "National Men's Council of Ireland" (how pretentious!) does not represent more than a handful of bitter ultra-rightwing individuals.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:26

The only reason we can know that George Bush or his countrymen or his relations were involved in the mayhem that apparently happened in Iraq, and I believe there were savage atrocities, was because we were largely informed by the media on all the facts as we now know them.

This article highlights the now indisputable fact that the media sources were relied on for those facts are corrupt. This does not mean that the Americans or any others have clean hands it simply means that we should question our sources.

In fact there are quite a few areas of discussion that seem to have similar traits. For example, the EU dictated to state of Ireland has been very vocal and openly critical against what they describe as the corruption in Uganda, they have begun to block funding and essential support mechanisms. How strange that Uganda is the only country in Africa with a falling rate of AIDS infections and just recently Uganda legally denounced homosexual marriage legally which is their entitlement as a sovereign nation. There. There are many more examples of similar political atrocities.

Might I remind you what country comes to mind first where we consider political corruption; I think you will find it to be a lot closer to home than Uganda.

You might like to address the issues raised in the article before you decide to shoot this messenger.

Now, kindly put the froth back in your mouth and think clearly before you reply….. and this time - do try to stick to the points raised.

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:11

So Uganda's funding was stopped because they denounced homosexual marriage according to you. If this was the case why did Bertie Aherne go visit the Pope recently? he has continued to condemn homosexual marriage.

Here are some links to details of corruption in Uganda http://allafrica.com/stories/200507070199.html
http://www.hivesite.com/blogs/2005/07/uganda-corruption-africas-worst.html

Here is amnesty internationals report on Uganda
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/uga-summary-eng

Here is your american friends report on the country
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41632.htm

Are you the same Harry that believes it is okay for the wage differences between men and women in Ireland?

by Nurse Rachet Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:13

the media is in the hands of extreme left wing propagandists who care nothing for the truth or the people they pretend to serve

Yes... The left wing media who

a) repeated the WMD story as gospel

or

b) gave plenty of space to the people who opposed the war, had beein to Iraq, like Scott Ritter, Denis Halliday...

Got any new jokes Harry?

It's all good spin, and good use of statistics, especially the recent ones, where the compilers were so afraid of the right wing media -political establishment that they only listed the deaths that they had all details for, names, age etc.

25,000 people and you even try to play that down... in favour of one man... A man who needs no protecting, except from the truth.

If there are 25,000 people who have been identified by the recent report, that leaves another 75,000 that they haven't and probably never will have all the details for...
but do those people really count, Harry?

by shipsea Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:19

You can quiblle about 17,000 or 170,00 deaths (not that getting it right isnt important) but either way, the Bush administration and its 'allies' have been responsible for the deaths of far more innocent civilians. How easy it is for you, sitting in your comfortable Dublin suburb to spend the lives of these people so casually. 'Regrettable' is a nauseating and insulting word to use in the context of what has happened to these men, women and children. Who the hell do you think you are to assume the right to make those sorts of judgment calls? If you have children then go and ask them the following question: 'If the US believes that Ireland is actively promoting terrorism they might invade. Unfortunately that might mean they have to carpet bomb the city of Dublin and it is very likely that you will die. Ive weighed it up and I think that your death and the deaths of many of your friends, neighbours and family would be worth it in the long run. Is that Ok?' Pro Life George Bush indeed! He is murdering people for oil and strategic control of a region that the US have not been able to subdue to their own corporate ends.

by Geoff Dolan Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:43

Are you not the same fella who slighty offended me bitching and moaning on about single mothers and how their children are more likely to become criminals?I was offended at the time because my dad died when I was young and my mother had to raise three of us.Guess what?None of us have a criminal record.

These days, though, I laugh at the likes of you.Even the name of your organisation is stupid. Dum da da dum, hrumphh, its... The National Men's Council of Ireland !(Thumps Fist on Table, probably). Let me guess, in association with...The Irish Bodyguard's Association. Yeargghh, Real Men!

Oh, ho, ho, dear, must desist, people in computer lab are looking strangely at me cos I'm giggling like a little girl.

Please, please, Harry Rea, write in again.You are the most lampoonish, funniest Conservative I have seen yet on this site.We need more men like you.Real Men.(Thumps Fist on Table!)

(The ironic thing is my dad was as right wing as you.Pro-Israel,homophobic, a fox hunter, and he would not let me join the Irish Anti Apartheid Movement because they were 'associated with communist terrorists.'
I got on fine with my da, he did his bestest for us, but, God, he was a bit an ass in some ways.You have to laugh)

by redjade Tue Jul 26, 2005 15:02

Why is it that the 'The National Men's Council of Ireland' is pro Iraq war
http://www.family-men.com

and the

'The National Women's Council of Ireland' is anti Iraq War.
http://www.nwci.ie

why is that the 'The National Women's Council of Ireland' is secular in their outlook and rhetoric

while the 'The National Men's Council of Ireland' is explicitly religious on their front page?

why is it that the 'The National Men's Council of Ireland' does not speak out on issues of racism nor against Michael McDowell seperating parents from Irish Citizen children, but the 'The National Women's Council of Ireland' does. Even though the 'The National Men's Council of Ireland' seems to exist for the sake of fathers to be able to raise their Irish children.

Why are 'Women's' political interests so different from 'Men's' political interests (note the inverted commas here)

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:25

Here is a quote from their website
"Marriage is denoted as the position that exists in law and in the Constitution whereby the Husband is designated as the head of the household and as the authority within the Family unit."
The cheek of them to call themselves the National Men's council, they are reactionary bigotted little men who want to control their wives and do not represent even a sizeable portion of men.

by Geoff Dolan Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:27

I never heard of them until Harry Rea posted the last few times.They're harmless and quite quaint and amusing, really.

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:28

If thats the case Geoff why are their marriages breaking up?

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:55

I don’t suppose any of you lot are interested in commenting on the issue raised in the opening article?

Although those who are unable to respond to fact and seem to be able to find some solace in attacking the ‘news-bearer’ always intrigue me, I will admit to being bored by the lack of imagination to say the least. For the sake of clarity I’ll repeat the jist of the opening article:

The media have been feeding us a pack of lies and have now been caught out.

I do not purport to condone war or violence, in fact check it out I did not raise that matter at all. If necessary I would be delighted to address some of the points that were raised later but has anyone got anything to say about how we now find ourselves having been verifiably conned?

by redjade Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:14

'feeding us a pack of lies'

Well, I'd agree that the media has been feeding us a pack of lies, but you are unclear in pointing out which lies exactly.

You mean if 34 or 25 Iraqis have died each day since 'Mission Accomplished' - yes it is a debatable figure - some would say it is much much higher!

All depends on who is counting and when they started counting and how the dead were counted. The Pentagon says they do not do bodycounts of civilians.

As for before the current Iraq war 100's of thousands died from sanctions - do you want to count them in the list of dead?

You should - Madeleine Albright at least admited to the accuracy of the number when she was US Sec of State.

But the reason that there are only speculative numbers (arrived by differing means) is that the Pentagon does NOT count the civilian dead - so go ask the Pentagon why this is, will ya?

I will give you a hint: if they count civilian dead the Pentagon, the Bush Admin and the US Troops could be held responsible in the International Criminal Court ( http://www.icc-cpi.int ).

Dead people could tell tales - and people in high places could be jailed.

Your website says your group stands 'with the Irish Constitution, extols the virtue and value of the two-parent, Marriage-based family'

Does your group also stand with the traditional interpretation of the Irish Constitution of Irish Neutrality?

-- -- --
Lesley Stahl (CBS) on U.S. sanctions against Iraq:
We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:12

It's the corporate media, they lie, Bush certainly lies, the Catholic church lies. This is Indymedia an independent media centre not corporate media.

Bush is a terrorist and as a result of his policies thousands of families have had loved ones killed. And you support him. He is about as pro family as they come alright, just as long as that family are pro him. You call yourself religious, is murder not a moral sin? How about support for murder, what kind of sin is that?

Now please answer the other questions that myself and other posters have put to you.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:26

The NMCI has, rest assured, hands on experience of the power of Bunreacht na hÉireann - the Irish Constitution and our members have defended it in the front lines against judicial activism to the supreme court level and in defence of this document that we firmly believe to be the last vestige of our sovereignty.

We were in the Radison Hotel in Limerick when Miss Schoppschilling addressed a meeting organised by the treasonous’ Irish Human Rights Commission and chaired by their ‘Maurice Manning to hear the attack on the Bunreacht na hÉireann and supporting arguments by the extreme feminist homosexual Commissioner Katherine Zappone of the Irish Human Rights Commission where it was said that Ireland gave away our sovereignty twenty six years ago when some of our political representative who it seems later transpired to have been found culpable in criminal activity.

We are delight to report that we stood with the many Irish women who had attended and proudly affirmed that these foreign infidels had no right to be disrespecting Bunreacht na hÉireann and tell the Irish people what to do. Have no doubt we won the night and we will continue to do our best for all that is good in Ireland.

I did not pick the word ‘Infidel’ lightly it means ‘someone who rejects Christianity and who promotes treachery in marriage’. The National Men’s Council of Ireland stand behind the Common Good and all that Marriage brings to that foundation of natural and national stability.

by Curious Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:33

I reject Christianity and I am unmarried does that make me half an infidel?

by eeekkkk Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:50

infi or a del

take y'r pick ;-)

by Chekov Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:01

For a start, this article by Harry / Roger is among the worst argued, most deluded things I've seen in a while. When I initially saw it I assumed that it was a wind-up as I assumed that the "national men's council of Ireland" would probably not be quite so stupid as to reveal openly that they are nothing more than a handful of twisted old bigots who miss the charms of being unquestioned boss around the house. It seems that I over-estimated them.

To have a brief look at the offering itself:

QUOTE "This article, below about the deaths in Iraq, reveals some very interesting detail about the tragedy that is unfolding. It is interesting because it shows that the major media outlets, BBC and RTE and the national newspapers are in fact pushing an agenda and not telling the truth."

This claim, about RTE and the BBC not telling the truth is entirely unsubstantiated in the article. It is just presented as an assertion, without so much as a single reference or quote to back it up. By itself this grave omission is enough to have the article classified as 'dustbin material - rubbish'. But, the boys then go on to dig themselves deeper into the mire.

"Their agenda is that George Bush is a wicked man and so everyone must hate him. He is wicked in their eyes because he is pro-life and pro-family and is trying to reverse the decline in morality that took place under the Clinton decade of permissiveness and his undermining of marriage."

Now this really is an extraordinary claim. Normally when sane people present such extraordinary claims such as this, they at least offer some sort of evidence or argument in support of this. We get nothing whatsoever to back up this bald assertion. Apparently, in these boy's universe, there is a blanket conspiracy in the media to make people "hate" GWB because he is a "wicked man". Somebody obviously forgot to tell Harris, Myarse and virtually the entire staff of independant media about this conspiracy.

"They ramp up hostility towards him by pushing out propaganda claiming that Coalition-led forces have killed 34 Iraqi civilians a day since they invaded."

Where? When? Any evidence?

QUOTE: "This article exposes that lie."

No it doesn't, not even remotely close in fact. For a start, the ardently pro-imperialist and openly right wing telegraph will print apologias for just about anything that the US/UK do. That's hardly surprising and doesn't expose anything other than the fact that the telegraph is a highly disreputable source of information.

"The article states that since the invasion when there were the regrettable but sadly inevitable casualties of war and 7000 Iraqis died, approximately 17,000 civilians have died from violent means. This total represents 25 per day, already considerably less than the hyped-up 34 per day. Yet even this is misleading.

The article further reveals that in fact 2400 civilians died as a direct result of Coalition action. This means that even though this number is still very regrettable the actual figure is 3 (three) per day killed by troops.The other 22 per day were killed by fellow Iraqis or by insurgents."

The article states all these things all right, but the article is a joke. It contains several clear distortions and is little more than a reprint of a UK government press release. The simple fact of the matter is that there has been one single serious attempt to scientifically estimate the number of deaths due to the war. This was published in the Lancet, a highly reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I am still unaware of anybody making any attempt whatsoever to question the findings or methodology of that study. The tory-graph article purposely lies about this fact when refering to a similar larger study on 22,000 households carried out by the UNDP coming to a lower estimate. In fact that study was nothing similar at all and was not an attempt to scientifically estimate the number of deaths due to the war.

As I say, unless you have an ideological reason not to do so, there is simply no option but to accept that the Lancet study provides the only reasonably objective estimate of the number of deaths.

The mainstream media is in fact guilty of grossly distorting the popular impression of the scale of the deaths by giving much more space to the claims of 25,000 deaths (according to a study which does not even attempt to estimate the number of war deaths) than it did to the Lancet conclusions.

QUOTE "That will not happen unfortunately whilst the media is in the hands of extreme left wing propagandists who care nothing for the truth or the people they pretend to serve, just the elevation of their own flawed ideology."

This is perhaps the most hilarious piece of your offering and it moves you from the 'deluded oddball' category into the 'seriously barking' one. Are you really claiming that Tony O'Reilly, Thomas Crosbie Holdings and Rupert Murdoch are of the extreme left??? Because, as even you must know, the media is firmly in their hands.

Anyway it's good to know that the ultra reactionary far-right catholics have got such barking mad people to speak on their behalf. All of the homosexuals, atheists, infidels and so on will sleep easy in their beds tonight knowing that the bigots are as likely to be committed as they are to pose any danger to people.

by Barry Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:07

It can be very unfortunate what happens to men sometimes when their marriages break up . Some turn to drink , others to promiscuity and it seems others seek refuge in the traditions of the good old days when virtually no marriages broke up no matter how unhappy . Its sort of understandable that people who feel abandoned and adrift with no idea of their role in life would seek comfort and reassurance from an era when everyone knew their place instinctively , everything stayed the same and women rarely ran off for pastures new . Anyone whos ever listened to country and western can attest to the devastation marriage break up can bring to a mans psyche . And it seems there are damaged psyches at work in the mens council .

I listen to country and western and indeed Id be socially conservative , with a small c . Im definitely not politically correct , wouldnt eat a lentil / mungbean / tofu if you paid me and Ive very little time for mad feminists , homosexual rights activists and the like to be perfectly honest . Just not my cup of tea .

But Harry , you and your mates are even madder than those fruitloop basketcases . How in the name of Jesus can you claim to support family and christian values when George Bush has destroyed more families and warped and contaminated every christian value there is through his murderous greed . Murderous greed , theft and murder , bearing false witness to the entire world . Those are the works of the fucking antichrist and only the man is a complete bollocks into the bargain Id reckon he was actual DNA linked spawn of Satan .

And to top it all you campaign on the issue of Bunreacht na hEireainn and Irish sovereignty ? George Bush and Tony Blair believe there is no such thing as Irish sovereignty . Bush has just forced a treaty on our gobshite ministers which means his forces can come to Ireland and do with us as they will , he uses Shannon as a virtual US base . His best mate Tony Blair demanded the dropping of articles 2 and 3 of your oul Bunreacht and has an army of occupation sitting in the North for fucks sake and youre rabbiting on about Irish sovereignty and your support for Bush ???

Im a member of a political organisation which actually attempts to have Irish sovereignty protected at the UN but we cant even get access to the UN because GW feckin Bush wont let us into New York !!

Harry , please , for the sake of your immortal christian soul I beg you not to endanger it by proclaiming your support for murderous evil , theft , lies and greed . God can see and hear you and some day youll answer for it . People are dying in their 1000s and families are being destroyed . Rather than commit such a mortal sin which will leave you beyond redemption Id implore you and your mates to commit a few smaller sins for your own good .

Book yourselves a package tour to Amsterdam for a long weekend .

Because if ever there was a group of Irishmen in desperate need of a good strong spliff and a good hard ride its you boyos .

by R. Isible Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:14

is the shallow spawning ground for scum like Bush. If you don't have time for feminists and homosexual rights activists then you don't have time for human beings asserting their right to be human in whatever way they want.

Don't be surprised when there's war, terrorism and torture when you start denying anyone the right to live their life as they see fit.

It's a slippery slope from disregarding the dignity of feminists or gays or whoever to disregarding the rights of uppity Fenians that won't shut their mouths and tip their forelocks.

by eeekkkk Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:16

I agree with you about the country and western. Hank Williams Snr. and George Jones and as ever Johnny Cash do exactly what you say and make the height of great art while they're at it.

How do you justify that reactionary line about gay rights activists and labelling gay activists and supporters who believe they should as 'friutloops'?

The gay community (drag queen division) are among the most dedicated and premiere supporters and spreaders of good country and western btw.

by Barry Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:38

I merely stated Im not a huge fan , that those particular issues are not my cup of tea personally . Believe it or not quite a few uppity fenians are themselves homosexuals and radical feminists , even both . I dont have a problem with what theyre about , its just not what Im about . I believe in a 1916 proclamation which promises to treat all the children of the nation equally , which obviously includes them .

But theres quite a bit of what they say I dont support personally . Some of what they say I do , primarily their right to dignity . Where have I stated anywhere that anyone should be denied a right to dignity or to assert it ? Utter nonsense . Merely that im not particularly interested in the promotion of radical feminism ( some brands of which state men are all potential rapists and that sex is rape , marriage institutionalised rape)or homosexuality . And theres no requirement anywhere bar some crank corner of a students union says I have to be .

Just because Im not a vocal supporter or enthusiast of those particular causes doesnt make me anything like GW Bush whatsoever . Thats an utterly lunatic accusation to make just because of a difference of opinion .

To be honest it sounds like Im a lot more tolerant of other peoples beliefs than yourself . Because I dont fit your particular pigeonhole of what causes are on a checklist for automatic support Im " wallowing in a spawning ground of scum like George Bush" ??

catch a feckin grip .

by R. Isible Tue Jul 26, 2005 20:13

QUOTE: "Merely that im not particularly interested in the promotion of [... ]homosexuality "

What does that mean? What's promotion?

QUOTE: "And theres no requirement anywhere bar some crank corner of a students union says I have to be ."

Who said that there's a requirement?

QUOTE: "Just because Im not a vocal supporter or enthusiast of those particular causes doesnt make me anything like GW Bush whatsoever ."

Sure it does: GW Bush is also not a vocal supporter or enthusiast for those causes and the majority of his electoral base are /specifically/ people that identify themselves as social conservatives. Their "lack of enthusiasm" ranges from ridiculing feminists and gays (as fruitloops for instance) to "not enthusiastically supporting" legislation that reverses the discrimination institutionalised to going out and killing them.

QUOTE: "Thats an utterly lunatic accusation to make just because of a difference of opinion."

No, it's not just because of a difference of opinion, it's because of the /opinion/. And, I didn't say you were "like GW Bush" I said that his particular form of extremism is spawned in the grounds of social conservatism: people that have a mild disinterest in gays/feminists but couldn't be bothered getting upset when they're treated unfairly. The point is that an injury to one is an injury to all: any society that practices discrimination and coercion against its members is one that is inuring its members to oppression of all forms. It doesn't surprise me that Baghram, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib etc happened because the US has a strong core of social conservatives that believe as Harry does in patriarchal families, capital punishment, prison rape, shoot-to-kill etc. Social injustice is a necessary preliminary to Imperialism.

Your position while not fruitloopery and insanity is shallow, reactive and unconvincing.

QUOTE: "To be honest it sounds like Im a lot more tolerant of other peoples beliefs than yourself . Because I dont fit your particular pigeonhole of what causes are on a checklist for automatic support Im " wallowing in a spawning ground of scum like George Bush" ??"

Yup, you sound like a good old tolerant liberal Barry. I'm not. I have no tolerance for fascists, social conservatives, sexists, homophobes, racists or idiots. You don't have to fit any pigeonhole in order to not be on that list. All you have to do is not believe any of the beliefs of those groups. Note, membership of one of those groups does not necessarily imply automatic membership or exclusion from any other group. I'll let you choose which ones you're in. There, that's tolerance.

by Barry Tue Jul 26, 2005 21:03

Im spelling this out for the last time .

I included those terms to describe some ( but not all) of the views , and more particularly proponents of certain extreme views that I encountered in my time at college , some of the books I had to read as well as some of their comments made through the media . I also worked in a community group next door to a womens centre where certain members of its committee held these extreme views , pathologically anti - male views . They openly despised all heterosexual males and made no secret of it .

In particular I hold the opinion that anyone advocating that marriage is institutionalised rape , heterosexual sex within marriage is technically rape and that all men are potential rapists etc as utterly twisted in the head . That is nuts . I have met fruitloops , both male and female who believe this , who advocate this . I have very little time for them and make no apology for it whatsoever .

There are plenty of absolutely SANE feminists who do not advocate this as it is clearly nonsense . I believe people should have the right to disagree with certain strands of radical feminist ideology . That does not make one a mysogynist nor does it mean one doesnt care about certain womens issues . I simply do not care for the radical extreme viewpoints advocated by fruitloops and basketcases .

I also believe that some of the characters to the forefront of promoting homosexuality are away in the head . For example Senator David Norris . That dickhead once stated during a radio debate about child sexual abuse by the clergy that he would have been delighted as a young boy to have been introduced into the ways of manly love by an older man . That is in my honest opinion sick and twisted . I have no time for people like him either and I dont apologise for it .

However as far as Im concerned anyone ripping a woman off as regards pay or employment is ripping off all workers . Anyone making our streets unsafe by attacking or even threatening women or gays attacks the entire community . An attack on one is indeed an attack on all . Because I have no interest whatsoever in the views outlined above I fail UTTERLY , to comprehend how I am contributing to either homophobia or the denial of womens dignity . Basically you can label me whatever you like , accuse me of whatever you like and I dont care . These are my final words on the subject .

So there .

by eeekkkk Tue Jul 26, 2005 21:10

was careless and lacked any qualifications views which made it very easy to take the wrong way. "I listen to country and western and indeed Id be socially conservative , with a small c . Im definitely not politically correct , wouldnt eat a lentil / mungbean / tofu if you paid me and Ive very little time for mad feminists , homosexual rights activists and the like to be perfectly honest . Just not my cup of tea .But Harry , you and your mates are even madder than those fruitloop basketcases ." I haven't heard the david Norris interview you refer to but in general I have a lot of time for him and he fought bravely and tenaciously for gay sex to be decriminalised in Ireland among consenting adults. He also made some great statements in the seanad before and during the US UK invasion of Iraq which I'll dig out for you if you're interested in more info about the man.

by Barry Tue Jul 26, 2005 21:12

it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest either if George Bush and Tony Blair were both latent homosexuals remembering how they were strutting around their ranch with cowboy hats obviously in love with each other .

by shipsea Tue Jul 26, 2005 22:29

Bliar and Bush repressed homosexuals! We should do all we can to help them out of the closet. What an infinitely better world it could be...

by Barry Tue Jul 26, 2005 22:41

Eeeekk has pointed out something I was previously unaware of , a fondness within the gay community for country and western music !!! Could this be a clue as to why George and Tony maintain their special "manly - stetsoned - ranchero " relationship , defying those who would split them apart no matter what ? Tony has indeed "stood by his man" . Both leaders seem to have manys the friend in low places .

Before anyone points out my own admitted fondness for CW (as opposed to GW) Im going to be too busy painting my toenails and ironing my hotpants to respond to any insinuations .

Id also like to apologise if my use of language offended anyone . I was simply trying to communicate to Harry on a level he might understand .

by Roger Eldridge - National Mens Council of Ireland Tue Jul 26, 2005 23:33 familymen at eircom dot net 07196-67138

... where did Harry or I say anything about supporting Bush?

What I said in my original piece was that the National media have been running an anti-Bush campaign and they also happen to be against Catholics, against marriage, against children having fathers, against women having husbands, against children having the right to life, against children having a childhood, against young adults being free from STDs, against children having the benefit of being disciplined by their parents.

You presumably think this is just a coincidence.

Whatever else you claim about Bush, it is indisputable that he is doing whatever he can to promote children having the right to life, teenagers being free of the scourge of STDs and children having a mother and father in their lives.

Can you not accept that the people of Ireland deserve to know that he is doing those good things. Do you believe the people of Ireland are so inclined to make the wrong choices that they need to be kept in the dark about those things Bush does that they undoubtedly would approve of?

The original piece was about corruption by the media.

It seems such a pity to allow apologists for the media to divert the subject with their asides and crude personal attacks.

What happened to the cut and thrust of the intellectual debate?

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 00:19

Poor Osama bin Laden is pro marriage and conservative family values as well . So are all his mates and the media is never done running him and the taliban down at every opportunity . The sanctity of marriage and mens role was never safer than in Afganistan amd the media never gave over until the place got such a bad name . Women knew what side their bloody bread was buttered there and the bloody lefty media went and spoiled it .

Bah !!

by shipsea Wed Jul 27, 2005 09:17

I may have spelled this woman's name wrong but her case gives the lie to how the Bush political dynasty (Dubya and Jeb) are using this pro life agenda to secure the votes of the loony right in the US. The truth is they dont actually give a damn about these issues. In the view of many people this woman was judicially murdered by her ex husband with the connivance of the State of Florida. The Bushes did nothing to stop it despite appeals. The circumstances of how she came to be in a coma were never properly explained or accounted for. What is known is that she was found by her husband in the middle of the night in this condition and nobody knows how it happened. It is also known that their marriage was not in good shape. He subsequently married another woman and had I believe three children. In other words he had no legal connection with her anymore. In the intervening years he relentlessly pursued the objective of having her life support shut off. He was given exclusive access to her at her death while her own family and parents were excluded. One of the foremost experts on comas found that she was showing signs of recognition to voices and to music - that is that she was not in a completely vegetative state. Anyone interested in this case should contact the New York Review of Books who recently carried an excellent article about it by someone whose name I cannot remember (sorry!). Where were Jeb and Dubya?

by Larry Rea - Strapping Lads of Erin Wed Jul 27, 2005 14:43

I must say that it is an offence against God Almighty and His Holy Constitution that all the newspapers in this country are now run by gay communist foreigners who are trying to pollute or brains with their ceaseless images of sodomy, women holding hands and young people, obviously out of their heads on crack, strutting naked through our streets. I sometimes wonder if this is the Ireland of my Blueshirt youth at all! What would Patrick Pearse say if he could see such wanton abondon? If those brave boys who fell in 1916 could only have foreseen the seething loins of this country and smell the stench of Gomorrah that fairly chokes the nostrils, they would have stayed at home on Easter morning, or even better, gone to church and prayed that God would work overtime zapping the infidels with Holy Hellfire, just like in the good old days.
I say bring back the birch. Bring back the rack. Bring abck the ducking chair.
Everyone knows that Christ was filled with hate for his fellow man.
And he was married with children whom he birched and racked should they show any signs of homosexual activity.
Ohhhhhh, get behind me satan.

by Geoff Dolan Wed Jul 27, 2005 15:15

Day 2 and I'm still in stiches.

Now, eeek, in fairness to Barry, I can see his angle about having 'little time for homosexual activists.' What he seems to be saying is that he is not an activist type.

Indeed, I have met many a Gay man that would call themselves social conservative with a small c.A friend of mine opposses Gay marriage, believing marriage is a licence to have families.Civil unions would be his alternative, the concept of propagation within the hetereosexual family unit is to be respected, civil unions would afford the same rights re taxation, mortages,etc, as marriage, but marriage is the licence for famiies, even if it is a largely symbolic one.

This man is a Gay man himself.

Don't be offended by his angle. BTW,Barry, loved your response to Mad Harry regarding the Taliban's 'defence' of family values.

Was there not a Republic Representative recently arguning against contraception, stating that the State there in the US has the right to regulate contraception betweeen married couples? Bonkers! Thankfully, the Bodyguards Association, erm, sorry, the Men's Council of Ireland are a quirky, curious minorety.

Sherlock Holmes, it is their own business as to the reasons why their marriages are breaking up.

Harry Rea, g'won my son!

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:33

I was close to being called a wife - beatin , gay bashing , gun-lovin , black hating , crack - open a keg outside death row and cheer type redneck there ( or at least being on the slippery slope to becoming one). Holy shit . Now I know how father Ted felt the time he was accused of racism . I even play pool once a week with the chinese boyos who run the local take away , spookily enough !!

Normally I enjoy reading what Eeek and R.Isible have to say but I think they over reacted ( particularly R.Isible) there to what was fairly obviously a tongue in cheek line regarding Harry and his surreal outburst . One of the main reasons why Id describe myself as "socially conservative with a small c" is I live in a small rural community near the border and thats just the way it is . Gay pride festivals , Love parades and wymyns clitoral awareness communes are few and far between . And Im quite happy in my little village , with my little house and nice neighbours , much happier than I ever was in the various "big smokes" I lived . Socially people tend to be a little conservative . Plus Im a good bit older now and you do get more conservative the older you get . But I live in Ireland , not fucking Texas .

Economically and politically Im definitely not conservative at all . Being accused of being just like George Bush and his ilk as well as to make my mind up whether im a " facist , social conservative , sexist , homophobe , racist or idiot " is a load of shite talk quite frankly . Utter hysterical nonsense . The fact your asking me to make my mind up which category I fit in makes me doubt youve ever encountered any of the above in your life .

Perhaps one of the things that always pissed me off more about actual activists , as opposed to the causes they subscribe to was the way a simple phrase , word or a line would always be seized upon as proof of someones innate , inbred sinfulness . A misjudged comment , wrong choice of newspaper or favourite tv programme was always proof for some idiot that a person was a bigoted , facist reactionary at heart . I think the same thing just happened to me there . Ive seen it many times and its happened to me in the past . Its every bit as nonsensical as what Harry is promoting except without the comedy value . Its just another form of ignorance and snobbishness - making an instant judgement on someones character that they dont even know . Snobbery , nothing more .

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:39

Keep her lit

Interesting how the PC brigade, just love to put you in their convenient little boxes.

I live in the the same social environment as you and my neighbours do not give a flying f**k where and what you are as long as you're a good neighbour...

They are conservative in their social values, but what that really means is that they do not wear their differences as badges...

Tolerance and freedom of thought is alive and kicking...but again this is something I have found by actually talking and engaging with the people as opposed to being a self-apppointed pc do gooder.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 19:12

D'ye reckon ?

Fair enough Eeekk made a reasonably polite enquiry and then accepted my explanation but the other fella went off the deep end .
Eeekk digs country and western . That makes him an honorary culchie at least .

by R. Isible Wed Jul 27, 2005 19:21

QUOTE: "Gay pride festivals , Love parades and wymyns clitoral awareness communes are few and far between . And Im quite happy in my little village , with my little house and nice neighbours , much happier than I ever was in the various "big smokes" I lived ."

Ah, that's grand then Barry. If you feel happy then there's no need to worry about people that don't feel happy in your little village.

Really I sympathise with your point of view. It must be terrible being oppressed for speaking your mind and then have people speak theirs to you?

I always laugh when I hear people banging on about "PC". It's just a denial that they've insulted someone else. How would you like it if I called your mother a cunt? You'd feel that was rude right? Well, whatever your reaction is to that is my reaction to you saying rude things that upset someone else for whatever reason.

Geoff Dolan's points on gay marriage are good, but there's a problem with them: Geoff is extrapolating from some people that happen to like people of the same sex and saying that that's representative and binding for all of those people.

That's exactly the problem with all of this conversation: it's none of our business what other people do as long as they aren't harming someone else. If some gays want to be married or have civil unions or live a swingin lifestyle that's their individual business. Same as it's the individual business for breeders what they do.

Finally Barry, if you describe yourself as a "social conservative" don't be surprised when you're taken at face value (and you've done little to dispel that impression with your diminshment of homosexual activists and feminists as "fruitloops").

Enjoy your little world in Little England.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 20:23

Who dont let their kids play with action men and cowboy guns because it "re-inforces gender stereo types"

Its people like you who had brilliant programmes like Benny Hill and The Sweeney and Kenny Everett taken off tv and replaced with Ben - bastard - Elton and Jo Brand and a host of feminist alternative " comediennes " using bad language and droning on about their periods .

Its people like you who probably cheered when the smoking ban was brought in .

Its people like you who make their kids eat meusli and wont let them eat frosties .

[Insult removed - ed]

by eeekkkkk Wed Jul 27, 2005 20:34

Well it might be. Gay people in areas like Barry's and where I'm from (3 miles from omeath in mountainy rural country) do not come out and are invisible because yes country areas in the majority of cases north and south are very conservative socially and that's why majority of Gay people from such areas migrate either permanently or intermittently (weekends etc) to the various metropolises north south and abroad. It's very easy to be offhand about gay people (or activists which most gay people aren't) if you don't have any in your social circle. Point is Indymedia is not a social circle and is a glasshouse with lots of gay visitors.

Some of them I've met recently at gay pride in Dublin and they were wearing Irish Citizens Army outfits.

Barry is getting too stroppy (some insulting comments deleted i've noticed) and should stick to arguing his points or backing down on ones that might have been too offhand imho.

People come here for a good argument across ideological boundaries. If you don't want to get as good as you give then the local bar might be a better alternative.

The little england reference from r isible I guess was a reference to 'the only gay in the village' in that comedy programme 'little britain'.

"You should come up sometime for a beer in the good old north we've got hippies, chuckies, gays and drunks every kind of human sort, And we're all El Paso Bound We can't afford a Round I'd Love a beer, A Smithwicks please To help pick me up off my knees"

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 21:07

Is it a political label , such as neo-con , neo liberal etc ?

I did NOT describe myself as a "social conservative" whatever the hell that is . I said " Id be socially conservative with a small c " . Basically , and for the final time that means , MY LIFESTYLE , SOCIAL LIFE , SEXUALITY , PERSONAL APPEARANCE , HOBBIES , INTERESTS AND PERSUITS are pretty much normal for a rural Irish village . Nothing out of the ordinary , pretty much normal everyday stuff . There are NO gay pubs , radical feminist societies , strange religious cults or whatever IN MY LOCALITY . None of this impacts on me in anyway whatsoever . I have no interest in it just as I have no interest in cricket , badminton , flower arranging or macrame . That does not for one second mean I hate gays , or women or anyone else .

But it does mean that in my time I have encountered prissy , rude , opinionated people . People who think they know everything and if for one second they get it into their heads that their favourite " ooh look at me im so right on and trendy " cause isnt as important to me as it is to them they go apeshit and start throwing labels and instant charachter assassinations around like crazy gay confetti at a same sex wedding . It looks like Ive just encountered yet another one of those people .

If a social conservative is a term thats used in the United States to define George Bushes voter base , and youve got it into your head that Im just like them, all that proves is you know more about whats going on in the US than you do about your own country . Not everyone fits into the handy wee labels people like yourself define people by . But as ANM pointed out if you actually took the time to talk to rather than at people and listen to what theyre saying youd know that anyway.

by R. Isible Wed Jul 27, 2005 21:35

I was going to shut up if you were, but you keep on going. So I'll assume that you want to continue this.

You have not made your position clear at ALL. Pedantic quibbling about "social" versus "socially" conservative aside, what do you mean by it?

I get the distinct impression that you feel that it's none of your concern if gay-people are discriminated against (in terms of tax purposes, medical carer rights, inheritance etc.) because it's of little interest to you.

I pointed out that this is a major injustice and that a society that allows something like that to go on is probably one that will be hardened to the idea of other types of injustice.

I don't give a damn if you secretly and personally hate gays or have a hard-on for them (well, actually that's not true, I'd dislike you on a personal level if I knew the former). What I care about is whether or not your behaviour affects my gay friends that I /do/ care about. So, if you're one of the people that doesn't get upset that gays are having a hard time, couldn't be arsed supporting political campaigns to support those rights then your political behaviour has at least two effects:

1) it helps create a society that accepts injustices

2) it hurts people that I know

Washing your hands of it all and saying "it doesn't affect me, I don't hate THEM but I wish THEY would just be quite" has been applied to women, blacks, the working class and whoever you're having in the long history of horrible societies based upon control of the small, traditional family unit.

The "liberals" that didn't hate those people (and indeed may have appreciated some aspects of them, like the sex or culture that came with them) look like part of the problem in retrospect.

Kneejerk crap about how you're being oppressed by the PC-police and semantic quibbling don't cut it.

Unless of course you didn't mean any of what you said and are too pig-headed to retract.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 21:54

OK , I did get too stroppy . But the fact is that way back in the thread I made a point of apologising for any language which might have offended anyone . But yer man came back and carried on insinuating I was a Bushite redneck , as well as calling my mother a c*** . And despite what you say Im still convinced his reference to me being a little Englander means he reckons northerners are really Brits . He also used the terms " Im alright jack" and "living it large" which I dont believe are catch phrases associated with the show , but are stereotypical phrases used by British people . Therefore , much like Michael McDowell it would appear Mr RIsible has snottery opinions on who is an Irish citizen and who isnt .

This in turn did lead me to use a few phrases which are indeed stereotypical to northern border people but wholly unsuitable to Indymedia debates .

by R.Isible Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:14

I definitely don't believe that people living in the occupied six counties are British if they don't want to be. I did not call your mother a cunt, I would be as angry at someone doing that as I would at someone dismissing "homosexual activists" as "fruitloops". They're both cases of unpardonable rudeness and only a unpardonably rude person would accept either of them.

"Little Englandism" is an attitude of parochial smugness, ignorance and complaceny. An "I'm alright Jack" attitude which seeks self-serving comfort within narrow boundaries.

It also happens to overlap with the Little Britain comedy which is appropriate in these circumstances.

Again, Imperialism is rooted in the psychological attitudes which heterosexual family norms create.

And apart from that you've got to be a bit of a bollocks to not care that someone or somepeople are ridiculed, discriminated against and harrassed on a personal and institutional basis.

Not hating people isn't a good enough when there are active haters plying their trade. "Oh? he's drowning? Well, I don't hate him and I didn't push him in, but I don't have much time for the activists trying to stop themselves being pushed in and drowning."

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:30

gay , straight or bisexual , please for Jaysus sake lets bring this thing to an end .

Number 1) It wasnt me who started on about being oppressed by the PC police but that other fella (ANM)

Number 2) Ill point out again I apologised waaayyy back for the use of any language which might offend anyone .

Number 3) as youve a major problem with me being socially conservative Ill try and make an effort to be more outrageous the next time Im out and about in company

Number 4) Ill be straight on this one , I find your assertion that because Im not out protesting on behalf of gays therefore Im party to their oppression a bit hard to take . If I was to take that attitude to peoples support for my individual pet cause Id sound nuttier than the Taliban . Whatever time I do have to protest on issues is usually taken up protesting on behalf of my own relatives and friends who are actually behind bars and in more need of a voice than gays are . Absolutely no-one , especially not David Norris , will lift a finger on their behalf . However if Im passing by a gay protest in future Ill give it my support and stand with them for a wee while . Providing that is no one who knows me is anywhere near it .

5) Ive said clearly that all the children of the nation should be treated equally . Equally means equally . That is my firm belief . Gays are children of the Irish nation . Ive stated nowhere that they should stay quiet about being discriminated against .

Now If youre man enough to withdraw your insinuations about me being a Brit and a closet Bush supporter , we can put this to bed . Whether its a gay , straight lesbian or a "hey Im up for anything bed" it matters not .

by dozzey Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:33

What's wrong with being a conservative - social conservative or whatever - the great thing about the western capitalist society that we live in is that it thrives on free speech.... no better example than the US - a prime example of cultural diversity and integration....

by dozzey Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:41

Barry i couldn't agree more...this left wing pinko bullshit is nothing more than a fad... (i said fad).... it'll pass - these eejits are focusing on Bush and really are missing the big picture - a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand..... many of the gay community are paranoid - i don't think people care anymore about what a persons sexual preference is (within reason obviously) that seems to bother people even more - the 'look at me i'm different' brigade hate that. We should all follow matt parker and trey stone - way ahead of their generation.

by R. Isible Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:45

QUOTE: "Number 4) Ill be straight on this one , I find your assertion that because Im not out protesting on behalf of gays therefore Im party to their oppression a bit hard to take"

Given your public ridiculing of those activists right here, you've gone a little further than "not protesting", you're actively creating hostile environment. And given that you're so sensitive about what you're called your outrage and indignation is not very moving.

I accept that you don't support G.W.Bush and that you don't consider yourself British, I never asserted either of those things however. I pointed out that you share distasteful beliefs with a large number of Bush's support base (they're not all raving, drooling homophobes, a large number of them are very polite, clean, well-mannered, educated, likeable people who do their best to ignore homosexual activists), and that your assertions that you're happy in your "little village" (and the consequent imputation that there are no gays there and everyone is happy with it) is reminiscent of the blinkered mindset of "Little Englandism".

Also, you've made every attempt to ignore the political implications of this attitude and concentrate on petty personal issues.

I suppose that's a good tack when you've got nothing to say.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:46

Whatever your selling im not interested , please go away .

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:52

that last comment was directed at the troll , not you .

However this one is . Basically every gay activist I have ever met has been a bad mannered extremist just like you . Youre attitude has just reminded me why I could never stand them . And there is a gay in my village , hes a hairdresser and no one gives a shite . Being a gay , for normal people isnt the most important thing in the world .
Believe it or not .

by dozzey Wed Jul 27, 2005 22:57

Barrys village has a gay. locals protest at upsurge in house break in's one local pensioner came home to find his ironing done and a cake in the oven....

by R. Isible Wed Jul 27, 2005 23:06

But, I think you take some other people's problems a bit too lightly. I apologise for any bad manners in the above and accept that you might have expressed yourself poorly and used phrases like "socially conservative" and "promotion of radical feminism and homosexuality" that are usually the preserve of people like the National Men's Council or Ian Paisley.

That said, I can't make out whether or not you think everythings fine and dandy (because you know a gay hairdresser and no one's burning down his shop) or what.

In any case, this conversation has degenerated into personal bickering between the two of us and I"m not learning anything from it so this is the end from me.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 23:15

By being man enough to admit my point of view is more logical than yours its clear that I was right and you were wrong . Thankyou for being so gracious and well mannered about it . Goodnight , and sleep well ..

by Anthony Thu Jul 28, 2005 00:35

I don't think there is "one side is right" in the above exchange of views. As somebody who has just read all the comments from today, it looks like the (non-major) differences between two points of view have been magnified and blown out of proportion due to misunderstandings as to what parties on both sides mean by different phrases. Certainly the past few comments have produced far more heat than light though that's not too surprising given the ridiculous start to this article.

by shipsea Thu Jul 28, 2005 05:06

From what I can make out R and Barry actually agree more than they disagree.

I would like to take issue with one thing R has said: 'Imperialism is rooted in hetersoexual family norms'. Thats a big claim and a very sweeping one. Whether or not homosexuals have been accepted or have been experiencing discrimination, they have always been participants in all aspects of society. I do not subscribe to the abuse of gay people in any form but neither do I believe that they are perfect human beings. I agree with R that it is not enough merely to passively disapprove of discrimination. You have to oppose it in all its forms whether it is a personal issue for you or not. Barry doesnt seem to realise that there is, in fact, a direct correlation between the discrimination that his relatives may have experienced and that experienced by the gay community. However, we are all capable of being biased from our particular perspective and this applies to gays as much as to anyone else. To say otherwise would be to patronise gay people. From a feminist point of view, I would also want to make a distinction between gay men and women. But the former have enjoyed far more power, influence and status historically by virtue of just being men. There have been certain men only power elites with a core of mysoginistic homosexuals at their core who have visited as much discrimination on women as they have experienced themselves as homosexuals (the christian churches for example). Their dislike and mistrust of women is not unique to them but it is something that many women - gay and straight alike have attested to. These men have played very significant roles in the imperialist 'project' throughout history and have been as voracious as anyone in the pursuit of power. Greed is not determined by sexuality.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:23

http://www.family-men.com/Bill%20That%20Will%20Profoundly%20Divide%20Canada.htm

Well said ‘Shipsea’, in fact the NMCI noted the information shown on the link above, entitled “A Bill That Will Profoundly Divide Canada”.

This is a brief on behalf of Canadian bishops' conference by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, on Bill C-38, the bill redefining marriage, presents to date the most comprehensive and erudite exposition on why state support for the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is the essential requirement to fulfil the Common Good in civilised societies.

Despite this brief being presented to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs two weeks in advance of the debate and vote on the issue the Senators still voted by 2 to 1 to endanger the institution of marriage by legitimising the issuing of licences to people of the same sex, thus revoking the natural law position that marriage is society's way of regulating healthy procreation.

That the senators could ignore such a cogently argued piece from a man who speaks on behalf of the majority of the population heralds the termination of rationality as well as democracy in Canada.

In an act of compassion and charity, Ireland must now open its borders to any Catholic who resides in Canada who wishes to escape the 'mental' asylum that this decision by the legislature creates.

Instead of "asylum seekers" this departure from rationality and democracy in Canada has created a new breed of refugees, "asylum deserters" who wish to leave the madness of political correctness and live again in a society where common sense and common decency still prevail and whilst Ireland still boasts that it is a Christian democratic country we must do everything possible to accommodate these escapees.

The link info is available from the National Men's Council of Ireland website at www.family-men.com / News Updates

by Barry Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:27

We'll advise all these refugees from Canadian persecution that they can all stay in your house . Hope youve plenty of room out the back for mooses .

by By Any Means Necessary Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:45

Its about time that the foreign occupiers of canada leave that country and leave it to the native people's....

No Queen in Canada

by shipsea Thu Jul 28, 2005 13:54

I dont understand why it should be of any consequence to heterosexual marriages if homosexuals want to make a legal and moral committment to each other? We have no right to determine how homosexuals chose to live their lives. Gay marriages do not interfere in any way with the right of other people to be married if they wish. If the institution of marriage is disintegrating, it is heterosexuals themselves who are to blame for it. I believe it is the voracious consumerism and 'me first' ethos of the last 50 years in particular which has done this. These are now our priorities while conscience, compassion and compromise are openly sneered at. Everbody is too selfish to put other people (i.e. their partners) first or even to make them an equal consideration. Marriage is a grown up institution for grown up people and not many of us are very good at being grown up anymore. Gay marriages may well help us all to learn something about how to get it right in future. God bless them.

by iosaf Thu Jul 28, 2005 14:11

Dear Mr Rea,
You qouted the RC cardinal of Quebec and said very wrongly that he spoke on behalf of the majority of Canada's citizens. He doesn't even speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecois.

* Do you support the seperatist Quebecois?
* How does marriage protect healthy procreation?
* Are you a fan of eugenics?
* Are you opposed to fertility therapies? If so what is your position on the number of healthy kids parented by those who gave them up for adoption to be raised by infertile catholics, were they following "natural law"?
* are you opposed to AIDS therapies being distributed to Africa's fertile population?
* Are you a supporter of "sharia" type or since I doubt you're that islamophile, calvinist fundementalist adultery laws?
* & finally how long has "marriage" rather than "betrothal" existed in the majority of society?

You have twice gurggled about intellectual debate, ok let's have one. Answer those questions. If you can't answer those questions, then stop gurggling about either Canada or Quebec or welcoming catholics into exile from Canada but I suspect not Africa.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Thu Jul 28, 2005 14:29

It does seem that you are all at sea!

The fact that people who have same sex attraction have been there in almost all recorded history and as you pointed out earlier have involved themselves at many occasions to corrupt the democratic majority is not at all the issue.

They are not, nor could they every claim to be ‘at it’ for the benefit of mankind. The question begs: What value would there be to society at all if ‘same sex attraction’ was the norm?

If faithfulness in same sex relationships was the case then it would be quite simple to deduce that the inability of the participants to procreate would annihilate them before the next generation unless of course they scurried back to normal sex to create more victims to deal with their predicament.

The problem actual is that they do not want to come up to our level of normality in how the married family has flourished but rather to attempt to drag us down to theirs as if that would justify their depravity.

Why not read the info that is available from the National Men's Council of Ireland website at www.family-men.com / News Updates - A Bill That Will Profoundly Divide Canada, and actually comment on that.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:14

When I read the last few comments I did it being under pressure for time, I should not have done it with such haste

On rereading what I just submitted it might appear, and it does to me on second reading to look as if I was labelling people as being depraved whereas I do not believe that.

What I do believe is that we should show compassion to people who commit homosexual acts that I personally believe are misguided

by reader Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:36

very nice of you. Hopefully now people will let you explain yourself in a less heated way. Which political party do you find yourself backing, since you must have noticed the way this issue is often used for nothing more than point scoring between hypocrites in Canada, France and other countries. I reckon society though isn't ready to see people safeguard procreation by having kids when they're most fertile in teenage years, because that would mean a society of mothers and fathers at the same age as the average first parent before 200 years ago and for the rest of history. & I suspect your only solution for avoiding such natural procreation is an enforced celibacy, supported by social forces often in clash with your own religious ethics. Doesn't that cause you difficulty, the flawed logic, ahistorical notions of stability and hypocrisy?

by shipsea Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:43

It is really offensive to suggest that homosexuals have tried to corrupt the 'democratic majority'. Nothing in what I wrote earlier was remotely intended to imply that - only that they along with the rest of us are as much responsible for the excesses and brutality of imperialism in all its shapes and forms.