Friday, June 06, 2008
Iris looking to ‘turn around’ gays
It was rather fitting that, in the week Brian Feeney labelled the Robinson-led DUP as the ‘Nasty Party,’ First Lady Iris lays out her views on turning around homosexuals. Iris had called for the portrayal of gay people to be banned from TV only a week earlier- when she also complained about not being able to use the term ‘coloureds.’ Ahh, for the good ol’ days Iris, eh???
Chris Donnelly @ 07:51 PM
Sammy quoted someone else:
.. then you are going to face a backlash from those who you are attacking, be it manifest in increased incidences of violence ..
Someone did say this on Nolan this morning (where Iris hung up, rather than defend herself, but not before accusing Nolan of “whipping up hysteria"). They called in to say that while they were against attacks on gays, the gay community shouldn’t be surprised if they encouraged attacks on themselves by parading themselves in public, and making their sexuality visible. These are people who obviously lead sheltered lives, as I see heterosexuality on show all the time, on TV, in adverts, on billboards, and indeed between men and women on the streets and in the pubs and clubs. Actually, women love being treated with physical affection and intimacy in public - obviously within reasonable limits. :)
Another guy phoned into Nolan to say that while he had gay friends, he considered the act to be disgusting, and I think a few people on this thread have intimated the same thing. The funny thing is that heterosexuals sometimes practice the same things that homosexuals do. And if you want to talk about disgusting, there’s plenty of stuff you can find on the internet, none of it homosexual, which stretches the limit of sex far beyond what you were taught in science class.
But the whole idea overall that people should cover up their sexuality in public reminds me of the old defence of rape, where women were blamed for “asking for it” by wearing short skirts. Going by all the claptrap about “morality” on here, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are households represented here where this idea is considered meritable. I wonder what Iris would think of that idea.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 07:36 PMat least she doesn’t want all their heads to be cut off like Islam fundamentalists.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 08:28 PMdave o’connell a.k.a. the Rapturer ? Raptor ?
‘It looks like Ireland is a land of saints, scholars and homosexual enablers. No wonder it is doomed. Hopefully, Iris will join us in The Rapture.’
The British Jewish novelist Israel Zangwill was once told by someone that Jews were suspicious of gentiles , and were clannish and unfriendly to others .
‘Yes’ said Zangwill ‘ ‘Thats true - two thousand years of Christian love has made us very nervous ‘
People who can’t wait to be joined in the ‘rapture’ by Mrs Robinson make me nervous too.
Are you the gobshite from Derry who says he is the ‘Christ’ reborn?
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 09:04 PMGreenflag,
Whoever ‘dave o’connell’ is, clicking on his name will take you to a wonderful website. I thought it was satire or some sort of joke at first, but it appears to be serious! I think it might be one of Phelps’?
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 09:36 PMHe certainly has a hatred of cigarettes.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 10:31 PMI always wondered who Betty was modelled on:
http://www.bettybowers.com/bash.html
Posted by on Jun 09, 2008 @ 11:49 PMThis is the poison chalice that freedom of speech is. We have to suffer morons like Irish making a tit out of herself on radio. And it is this kind of criticism made by a public figure that feeds the hatred of the fists and boots of the buckfast bullyboys.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:30 AMI wrote and am quoted:
“DUP Homophobia has lead to at least two deaths last year.” - Different Drummer
Dave Replies with a football analogy:
There is a difference between expressing an opinion and issuing a directive to others to engage in murder. Manchester United fans don’t much like Manchester City fans, and some have even killed the other, but that isn’t a reason to censor criticism of either team.
really Dave is that the best you can do?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:44 AM@Different Drummer
“I recall you were not very happy about last years gay pride when someone carried a banner say ‘Jesus is a Fag’.
You were not supporting that persons right to free expression were you?”
I very much doubt that I called for that person to be censored, I probably said something about the comparative reaction if he said something equally disparaging about Mohammed or if a Christian was holding up a sign insulting gays, but I’m 99.9% certain I didn’t call for him to be censored.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will be happy to retract.
@TAFKABO
“Sorry Harry, but just as you carefully switched the questioned I asked you mast time, and answered a question of your own choosing, you’re now carefully distorting what it is I have said.”
No I didn’t. I addressed your question with admirable directness, you said that no one was trying to censor Iris Robinson and I gave evidence that no less an august body than the Police Service of Northern Ireland was instigating a criminal investigation of her statements.
Attempted censorship doesn’t come any bloody plainer than that.
“you’re a champion of free speech, for all those who agree with you.”
No I am not, that is the position of many anti-Robinson posters here but not me, I am the only one here consistently arguing in favour of free speech.
Have you any other fatuous remarks about me that you wish me to thwack out of the ball park?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:50 AMKensei has claimed that the “bigots have lost the debate”, and I assume that he is referring to us social conservatives who have not bought into the 1960s “if it feels good, do it” nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there have been silly arguments such as that described by Comrade Stalin above, but other good ones.
On the other hand there is an unpleasantly authoritarian streak in many of Mrs Robinson’s opponents, such as the gay rights activist in County Down (forget his name) who went to the police apparently to get them to investigate Mrs Robinson for committing a criminal offence. Progressives can often be the most illiberal people you could ever meet.
If anyone is losing the argument it is people like Different Drummer with emotively wild statements that “DUP Homophobia has lead to at least two deaths last year.” If s/he has any evidence that any DUP representatives incited any person to commit any murder then s/he should go to the police. If on the other hand, it is cheap website rhetoric ("it creates a climate”, etc.), s/he should at least admit to it.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 06:20 AMAt the end of the day Iris may or may not be reflecting the views of her electroate however come her election/judgment day all shall be revealed!
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 06:40 AMWatchman
Kensei has claimed that the “bigots have lost the debate”, and I assume that he is referring to us social conservatives who have not bought into the 1960s “if it feels good, do it” nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there have been silly arguments such as that described by Comrade Stalin above, but other good ones.
Yes, because anyone who believes in personal freedom does so because they buy into a “if it feels good do it” philosophy. What relationship two consenting adults have with each other is none of my business. Or yours. And while evangelical Christianity might be down on gays, there would be other religions, even and other sects of Christianity that would be more comfortable with it and being a republican I have absolutely no desire to live in a theocracy.
The debate is over. Chances of homosexuality being made illegal again: 0. Chances of anti-discrimination laws being repealed: 0. Chances of gay marriage laws being repealed: 0. Chances of anyone who came out with what Iris said not being perceived as a wingnut by most of the population: 0.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 08:33 AMFlashharry
My point -if I recall about the person who carried the ‘Jesus is a Fag’ banner is that it was useful for Loyalist and fundamentalist campaigners to use for the purposes of creating a volk devil.
Now the difference between that and what Iris is doing - for Loyalists is that she is now a cause celebre.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 08:41 AMMayhap DD but that is not the point, you alleged that I called for the poster carrier to be censored thus indicating that I was a hypocrite. Posters like TAFKABO then read that and assumed that I believed in free speech only for people that agreed with me, when I patently do not.
I would be most grateful therefore if you could be so kind as to retract the allegation that I called for censorship, TAF won’t believe me, he only believes what he wants to believe.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:48 AMFlashharry
No that’s not what I mean at all - the question of free speech is a misnomer as it is used for other purposes.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:01 AMseems that the main problem here is not with opinions or free speech or rights. its actually about morals and right and wrong. society has rejected any teaching of right and wrong which traditionally came from the bible. people can do whatever they want, its entirely your own business what you do etc.. taking this attitude means that nobody can tell you your bad.
the problem comes when its pointed out to people that their actions are sinful. they cant handle the fact their lifestyle is considered immoral etc. so they attack anyone who criticizes them.
they can shout all they want, it wont cover the sinful lifestyle they lead.Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:13 AMExactly why is homosexuality sinful?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:22 AMseems that the main problem here is not with opinions or free speech or rights. its actually about morals and right and wrong. society has rejected any teaching of right and wrong which traditionally came from the bible.
What about Atheists? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Sheiks? Scientologists? We live in a democracy.
The Bible has no relevance. Yes, it is the basis from which a lot of our law (North and South) has come from, but the law is not the law because it is in the Bible. The law is the law because the legislature has passed those laws. Or law is not morality. Our law is a social construct based on consensus opinion. When consensus changes, so does the law and it has done so many times.
people can do whatever they want, its entirely your own business what you do etc.. taking this attitude means that nobody can tell you your bad.
the problem comes when its pointed out to people that their actions are sinful. they cant handle the fact their lifestyle is considered immoral etc. so they attack anyone who criticizes them.
they can shout all they want, it wont cover the sinful lifestyle they lead.No, people cannot do whatever they want. Murder, theft, rape - these are all things society takes a very dim view of, and that is very likely to remain the same no matter how consensus involved.
You have every right to consider homosexuality immoral. You have no right to export your morality on anyone else. God said it isn’t a good enough argument. If you want it proscribed, you need to demonstrate how society would be improved by this, and build a consensus to get it done.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:26 AMgareth ,
Thanks for the info . If it’s dave o’connell the chaps a loonie and if he’s Phelps well not only does God hate the Irish but also the Swedes , gays , everybody apparently bar phelps and his 70 member church of whom 61 are ‘family’
You never know on the web - This ‘new ‘ hansen ‘ may also be a clone
joecanuck ,
Chap apparently just ‘hates’ . Doesn’t matter what according to one of his estranged kids.
A very long spoon is in order -best not to feed the beast.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:30 AM‘Exactly why is homosexuality sinful? ‘
If you are a Christian and believe in the biblical truth then homosexuality is sinful .
If you are a Marxist and believe in Communism then being a capitalist is a crime against the faith i.e sinful.
The main difference between the two is that in the latter when you die after you’ve been shot you just die .
In the former your God gets to roast you on a spit for all eternity amid gnashing of teeth . Naturally the lord delegates the management of his torture chamber to one Satan /Beelzebubb etc.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 10:49 AMA very good and full discussion (this liberal political correctness niche has some benefits who knows it may catch on LOL).
But seriously my thanks to all those who have written to oppose Iris’s view of human nature and the world.
I think it’s beginning to be a test case for the DUP/SF government: Are their paper policies just that or will the forces of modernity rearrange another welcome departure - not sure.
One thing I do know is there are a lot backwoods men wanting to go to this years gay pride and it won’t be to cheer.
But as I said I’m much more optimistic than last year I think Iris will garner support but those opposed to her are increasing day by day.
I think those who want liberal democracy are showing how serious they are about that and it’s is a welcome change.
What a pity the Big man would not let us have it forty years ago.Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:13 AMKensei ,
Such common sense -I’m in awe :)
harry flashman ,
The debate is over. Chances of homosexuality being made illegal again: 0. Chances of anti-discrimination laws being repealed: 0. Chances of gay marriage laws being repealed: 0. Chances of anyone who came out with what Iris said not being perceived as a wingnut by most of the population: 0.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:14 AMGreenflag
If you are a Christian and believe in the biblical truth then homosexuality is sinful .
I dislike the way you’ve framed the assertion. “Biblical Christians” are just as selective as anyone else. Catholics are very fundamentalist when it comes to what Jesus meant when he said “This is my Body”, for example.
In any case, I think Protestantism loses from the loss of the deutero-canonical books, particularly the Book of Wisdom:
For thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it.
And how could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee?
But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:18 AMBiblical Truth? but many of those passages allegedly condemning homosexuals are misinterpreted. So its a ‘truth’ only in the minds of the bigots who cherrypick and twist the parts of the bible they need.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:20 AM‘Exactly why is homosexuality sinful? ‘
If you are a Christian and believe in the biblical truth then homosexuality is sinful .
RS, greenflag speaks the truth. never thought id say that! unfortunately his last 2 points are wrong. but we’ll not go into a bible discussion.
kensei, i didnt mean breaking the law like murder etc. i was talking more about whats moral and immoral. especially round sexuality. sexual immorality has been rebadged by secular society as ‘fun’. the problem is when people are reminded that what they call fun is actually something sinful called sexual immorality. they cant handle thinking of themselves are bad.
“You have every right to consider homosexuality immoral. You have no right to export your morality on anyone else.”
in what way can i export my morality on someone else? if society accepts we can all voice our opinions on homosexuality, then people have to accept those opinions when they’re said.
“God said it isn’t a good enough argument.”
it is for a Christian.
If you want it proscribed, you need to demonstrate how society would be improved by this, and build a consensus to get it done.”
i didnt mention proscribed or anything like that. but it would definately be a better world if people didnt sin.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:27 AM
