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
Kensei mmmmm
Thanks for that homily. No doubt it has a certain power. Pity some people use it to justify violent hate against minorities.
It’s signer not the song I’m worried about…
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:30 AMeranu, a misinterpretation is to be taken as the truth and so it allows for the condemnation of homosexuality, hardly very fair now is it.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 11:34 AMSo its a ‘truth’ only in the minds of the bigots who cherrypick and twist the parts of the bible they need.
This ‘cherrypick’ accusation is obviously founded on a misreading of the scriptures. I was greatly impressed by the questions posted by Nat on Jun 07, 2008 @ 11:51 AM (Third Page) and have saved them and forwarded them to my friends. But in fact the dilemma posited is only so for Karaites, a particular kind of Jew who reject the Talmud.
For Christians and the like, the instructions of Leviticus have been repealed or at the very least downgraded to the point where they no longer function and been replaced by a more manageable pair, as reported in Mark 12 29-31: to love God with all your heart etc, and to love your neighbour as yourself.
I don’t think you need to be Finbarr Saunders to see the implications of this last one.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:01 PMWatchman
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 kensei on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:33 AMKensei, the debate will never be over as long as a thead like this can prompt nearly 300 responses, some dross admittedly, but a thread with toughly argued points, in Slugger’s best tradition. What neither of us can do is to close this particular debate down. In fact we shall hear more of it in the following few years as pressure continues to be brought against evangelical Christians who stand up against the secular tide.
You may be glad to live in an increasingly irreligious society where everyone is supposedly free to do what they like. The problem is that, once restraint and moral censure go out the window and everyone starts doing precisely what they like, you will soon meet someone who exercises his own freedom in such a way as to infringe your own. It could be a new neighbour playing music loudly, who responds to complaints with “I can do what I like in my own house” and then with more threatening behaviour. It could be a pack of teenagers whose low-level anti-social behaviour makes the top deck of buses no go areas. Or who litter streets with takeaways.
The point I’m making is far wider than one MP’s views on homosexuality. The relaxation of censure against homosexuals, whether it be legal or, more importantly, moral, is one manifestation of the social revolution of the 1960s and the rise of the Me Generation. But another is the social decline evident in an increasingly fractured society where incivility and crime are rife. We are all getting the liberal open society that social liberals have crafted over the last 40 years.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:22 PM“We are all getting the liberal open society that social liberals have crafted over the last 40 years.”
Hooray for that!
However you also say, “The problem is that, once restraint and moral censure go out the window and everyone starts doing precisely what they like, you will soon meet someone who exercises his own freedom in such a way as to infringe your own. It could be a new neighbour playing music loudly...”
This is some strange fantasy world. What sort of society are you imagining Watchman? We do not and will never live in an anarchical society. Most freedoms are qualified when they impinge on another’s freedom, as is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights for example.
I must say, I am delighted at the debate engendered by fundamentalist Christian stupidity over the last year or so (e.g. Iris Robinson and the Lisburn council/creationism saga). It is a debate long overdue in Northern Ireland and I am very hopeful that it is a debate the Christian bigots cannot win. Are we finally waking up to the 21st Century?
I am a former DUP voter and am proud to say that these episodes have finally broken down my tribal voting stance. I’ll be voting mainly on social issues from here on.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 12:56 PMComrade Stalin, if you ask a Jew what is the best way for minorities to integrate, he’ll tell you in one word “assimilate.” So, naturally, this Jew is going to recommend gay conservatism as opposed to gay radicalism which can only lead to controntation and increased marginalisation for gays. ;)
Anyway, back to the subject of extreme laicism and the liberal left’s role in engineering it, which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger referred to as Christian morals and values were being “forced underground by secular forces”.
“Secularism is no longer that element of neutrality which opens up space for freedom for all. It is beginning to change into an ideology which is being imposed through politics.”
The Pope (though his name may offend Iris Robinson and her ilk) is spot on in his observation that laicism has transmuted into an extreme political ideology that presents a threat to freedom of expression not just for religious views but for any view that runs counter to the imposed ideology.
“We must defend religious freedom against the imposition of an ideology that presents itself as the only voice of rationality”.
I think we see a prefect depiction of those forces and the unwitting mentalities that it has engineered right here on this thread. Ironically, it is extreme bigots (who wrongly assume they are enlightened by the extreme ideology they are indoctrinated with) screaming the word ‘Bigot’ at others, using it as a synonym for “Unauthorised viewpoint detected. Censor immediately. Delete! Desist!”
Cardinal Ratzinger observes:
“The world’s cultures are profoundly adverse to the extreme secularization that has consolidated in the West. They have the conviction that a world without God has no future,” Cardinal Ratzinger said.
“Our very multicultural condition calls us to be ourselves ... we still don’t know where Europe will go, but the Constitution of the European Union might be a first step toward a new conscious search of its soul,” the cardinal said.
Asked if the recent rejection of Rocco Buttiglione as a commissioner of the European Union is the expression of a hostile opposition to Christians’ contribution to the building of the Union, the cardinal replied: “It is above all a sign of the way in which the neutrality of the state sphere, in regard to the view of the world, is about to be transformed into a sort of dogmatic ideology.”
As a result, “laicism is no longer the guarantee of many convictions, but establishes itself as an ideology that imposes what must be thought and said; for example, it no longer ensures the Christian’s public presence,” he added.
“I believe it is a phenomenon that should make us reflect,” the Vatican prefect said. “What seemed to be a guarantee of a common freedom, is being transformed into an ideology that is turning into dogmatism and endangering religious freedom.”
With reference to the struggle for the recognition of Europe’s Christian roots in the Constitutional Treaty, Cardinal Ratzinger said: “Undoubtedly, it is important that, in the first place, the presence of our juridical and moral conscience be clearly guaranteed in areas of greater content, something that, in part, has been achieved.
“I think efforts have been made to make the Christian heritage count in specific elements of the European Constitution and its juridical form, with varying degrees of success, according to the cases.”
“But I would not regard it as useless or completely mistaken to describe Europe’s identity in the Preamble, and to simply state what it is, where it comes from, [and] from where it gets its criteria of judgment,” the cardinal continued.
“I would also like to say that the argument which states that in this way a clash is created with other religions, is false. On the contrary, the latter feel assaulted by our absolute secularism,” he said.
In comparing U.S. and European attitudes to diverse religions, Cardinal Ratzinger added: “I think that from many points of view the American model is the better one,” while “Europe has remained bogged down in caesaropapism.”
http://zenit.org/article-11630?l=english
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 01:23 PMWatchman
Kensei, the debate will never be over as long as a thead like this can prompt nearly 300 responses, some dross admittedly, but a thread with toughly argued points, in Slugger’s best tradition. What neither of us can do is to close this particular debate down. In fact we shall hear more of it in the following few years as pressure continues to be brought against evangelical Christians who stand up against the secular tide.
This site could throw up a 100 page thread on whether the 1916 Rising should have occurred, or if Ireland should have joined the Union, or if the British Government could have done more in the famine. Those debates are now over though, except in a historical context. Like this one.
You may be glad to live in an increasingly irreligious society where everyone is supposedly free to do what they like.
I am happier to live in a society where people don’t get beaten for who they chose to have their relationships with, yes.
The problem is that, once restraint and moral censure go out the window and everyone starts doing precisely what they like, you will soon meet someone who exercises his own freedom in such a way as to infringe your own. It could be a new neighbour playing music loudly, who responds to complaints with “I can do what I like in my own house” and then with more threatening behaviour. It could be a pack of teenagers whose low-level anti-social behaviour makes the top deck of buses no go areas. Or who litter streets with takeaways.
Completely different things. None of those things involve consenting adults making informed and free choices.
You are also falling into a nostalgic fallacy. Prior to the 60’s there were a lot of nasty things: racism, sexism, stifling inequalities, intolerance. There were aspects of society that were better than today, sure. That world has been shattered, not just during the liberal 60’s but also the conservative 80’s.
So the world needs rebuilt. Saying that it should be rebuilt as it was prior to any change is the wrong answer. We need a new world, not the old one. Tough, but no tougher than turning the clock back.
The point I’m making is far wider than one MP’s views on homosexuality. The relaxation of censure against homosexuals, whether it be legal or, more importantly, moral, is one manifestation of the social revolution of the 1960s and the rise of the Me Generation. But another is the social decline evident in an increasingly fractured society where incivility and crime are rife. We are all getting the liberal open society that social liberals have crafted over the last 40 years.
I’m sorry, but this cannot be laid at the door of the liberal consensus. The 1980’s and the rise of uncontrolled consumerism, individualism and greed bears as much of the responsibility.
In any case, you don’t seem interested in examining the causes or interactions that led us to this point. You just jump on a rhetorical bandwagon because it suits your ideological view.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 01:23 PMContinued
You don’t need to be Christian or even a theist to see the truth in what Cardinal Ratzinger says above. The eminent philosopher Jürgen Habermas, an atheist, supporting Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment and said that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation”. He went on to note erasing the religious history from which the West emerged in an attempt to promoted extreme secularism is flawed because “recognising our Judaeo-Christian roots more clearly not only does not impair intercultural understanding, it is what makes it possible.”
As Habermas observed: “In the general levelling of society by the media everything seems to lose seriousness, even institutionalised Christianity. But theology would lose its identity if it sought to uncouple itself from the dogmatic nucleus of religion, and thus from the religious language in which the community’s practices of prayer, confession, and faith are made concrete.”
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 01:24 PMThere are times when one has passionate but well argued disagreements with other people on this blog. And there are times when one is left wondering exactly what the point being made by a seemingly intelligent person is.
Eranu, in what would the world be a better place if me and Mr. Sammy weren’t an item?
Watchman, in what way are Mr. Sammy and I responsible for incivility and crime?
By the way, Watchman, I don’t buy into your Enid Blyton view of the 1950s. As far as I can tell, in my grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ generation, alcoholism was rife, violence within the home endemic and intolerance and prejudice towards people who were a bit different acceptable.
I am distressed by the decline in civility too, but social change has hardly been a one-way street.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 01:32 PMTo Dave Continued & Continuing...mmmmm
You have a repetitive version of rhetoric there sorry but it sounds rather like the depressed robot in the Hicth Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 02:09 PMI don’t buy into your Enid Blyton view of the 1950s. As far as I can tell, in my grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ generation, alcoholism was rife, violence within the home endemic and intolerance and prejudice towards people who were a bit different acceptable.
Enid Blyton’s view was accurate, but selective. She did not set out to portray problem families, except from the outside, as problems. Alcoholism in the 1950s was possibly slightly more widespread than today, due to a lack of alternative stimulants, but heroin addiction, the cause of most of contemporary street crime, was unknown.
The idea that wife beating was universal then but has now been abolished by government intervention is something made up by feminists. However children got the sharp end of the stick a lot more than they do today- from parents and in locos at least. Children are just as violent to each other today, and probably more likely to kill each other.
There was little of what one might call racism because there was no immigration to speak of. The words ‘racist and sexist’ were unknown, as was any kind of political correctness.
There was probably more innocence about: Noddy could share a bed with Big Ears and no-one made any remark upon it.
Food was universally dreadful. It was a lot dirtier due to coal burning, especially on trains.
Of course, this thread would be impossible. It might even warrant intervention by the police.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 03:25 PMBased on the BB Have Your Say, but it could equally apply to here :P
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/
This thread puts me in mind of it, somehow.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 03:30 PMSammy Morse,
I am not saying that you or your partner are responsible for incivility or crime. Rather, I believe there is a law of unintended consequences at work.
In a nutshell, the social revolution of the 1960s was about supposedly “freeing” people to live their own lives as they saw fit, free of the moral censure of others. Or to put it another way, “If it feels good, do it”. That’s why the the gay liberation movement came out of the closet, so to speak, at this time. But if someone feels himself free to structure their sexual relationships as they see fit, why shouldn’t others feel that they can act as they like in other ways?
If restraint is officially abolished in one area of life, why might this not spread to the others? I’m not blaming the 1960s for everything and accept that there were malign social consequences from the 1980s, but that’s another story. Peter Hitchens explains this far better than me in a recent piece on his blog, and I’ll conclude with this:
“… (T)he heart of the ‘liberation’ imposed on this country by the post-war ‘enlightenment’ is that we are all free now, to do exactly as we wish, when and where we wish to do it - that is to say, the opposite of the religious impulse which requires us (doesn’t just ask nicely, but requires) to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. This rejection of the need to care about your neighbour is the one belief that unites (and will eventually drive into warfare among themselves) the baby boom generation and its successors.
“The main ‘liberation’ they care about, the one that Paris 1968, and the student revolution, and the American campus revolt were all about, is the freedom to do exactly as you like. It is of course dressed up as altruistic, and expressed as the view that other people may do exactly as they like. It is frequently accompanied by well-publicised charitable fund-raising or giving.
“But that’s just a sop. The real purpose is to free me. What they have yet to discover in detail is that this also means not only that the other person is equally free to do exactly as he likes, but that this might turn out to the disadvantage of me, especially if the other person is bigger, stronger, crueller, richer and younger than me.”
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 03:41 PMShe did not set out to portray problem families, except from the outside, as problems.
She did not set out to portray families who had problems at all. Or who had problems like “my mother died when I was young and I grew up with my father, a circus juggler, where I travelled around with him until he died and left me the address of my long lost aunt and uncle in Buckinghamshire who took me in and sent me to boarding school.”
The idea that wife beating was universal then but has now been abolished by government intervention is something made up by feminists.
I don’t buy into either your or their extreme position. Wife beating was a damn sight more common than it is today (go back far enough and it wasn’t even seen as a problem), and has declined because of social change, the pill and the economic empowerment of women; things that had little to do with government.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 03:46 PMWife beating was a damn sight more common than it is today
The world hasn’t changed that much. I can only refer you to Earnán De Blaghd, writing about growing up in the 20s or before, in Stoneyford I think. A certain woman in the neighbourhood was notorious for leading her husband the life of the damned. When he finally, to universal applause, actually hit her, she toured the neighbourhood displaying her wound attempting, unsuccessfully, to solicit sympathy.
Husband battering was just as notorious, the rolling pin being the traditional implement of attack.
Generally women get what they want from men, I find.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 04:11 PMShe did not set out to portray families who had problems at all. Or who had problems like “my mother died when I was young and I grew up with my father, a circus juggler, where I travelled around with him until he died and left me the address of my long lost aunt and uncle in Buckinghamshire who took me in and sent me to boarding school.”
Possibly this was the secret of her success. The fact is, sob stories are a specialist interest little appreciated by Irish children, who probably see them as a parental weapon in the ongoing war as to why I can’t have an i-pod etc. I can only refer you to a recent discussion in the Guardian, about the book Peig:-
“Those of you who are unfamiliar with the Peig (ie anyone who wasn’t forced to study it in school in Ireland) should keep it that way. It’s the autobiography of an old Irishwoman who laughed a grand total of once in her entire life, when somebody hit somebody else with a rotten turnip. Apart from that it was wall to wall misery - not least because nearly all her 57 children died, many of them in suspicious circumstances. However, Peig’s misery pales is nothing compared to the misery inflicted on the many hundreds of thousands of young Irish children who were forced to read and study her terrible book in school.”
Besides, the sorrowful lot of the orphaned daughter of a Circus Juggler was hardly an average upbringing in the 1950s, believe it or not.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 04:26 PMContinuing Dave Continued.....
Yes Dave Thank you for all that - I just managed to get through just there now.
What you were trying to say can be but in one sentence:
One persons de-legitimization is another persons legitimization crisis.
Could not agree more!
I think the DUP is having a legitimization crisis.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 04:57 PMPaddy, don’t get me wrong. I love Enid Blyton. But some people’s impression of the pre-60s era seems to be based on the fallacy that it’s a reasonable portrayal of middle-class life in the period, which transparently it isn’t.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 04:58 PMIt truly is amazing how the liberal left simply suck up the Gramsci Kool Aid.
In the 1950’s allegedly some men beat up their wives and said racist things so we had to overthrow the twenty centuries of social norms which had created in Britain and Ireland remarkably stable and law abiding societies and replace them with what? Societal breakdown with feral children who have never known male adult supervision, rampant drug taking and alcoholism (who seriously believes that alcohol consumption has declined in these islands since the 1950’s?), lawlessness, unlimited mass immigration, impotent policing, a massive increase in teenage pregnancies and abortions generally.
But we have abolished spouse abuse and racism haven’t we? Have we fuck!
Of course the defence of the left is that these problems weren’t their fault but Maggie’s, as if somehow the Tories in the 1980’s ran on manifestos of increasing single motherhood and divorce!
Kensei I haven’t heard a single person advocating beating up gays here have you?
Curiously however there seems to be a growing demand to outlaw free speech that is deemed “offensive” by gays, I’m sure you’d oppose such illiberal Stalinism vigorously, wouldn’t you?
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 05:02 PMIn the 1950’s allegedly some men beat up their wives and said racist things so we had to overthrow the twenty centuries of social norms which had created in Britain and Ireland remarkably stable and law abiding societies and replace them with what?
I couldn’t agree more. The problem of wife-beating is caused, not by a lack of political correctness or job opportunities for women, but by the fact that a significant subset of the female gender are genetically predisposed to be attracted to violent men. You can see the Darwinian motivation in this choice, can’t you? When they then fail to manipulate their spouse correctly, we are expected to feel sorry for them.
As for this being something from the past, the brother of a friend of a friend was, not more than six years ago, jailed and in a prison near me because he beat his wife to death with a frying-pan. I offered to visit him, but said I would be unable to refrain from making jokes about frying-pans.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 05:55 PMFlashharry
On last and no doubt future postings : The Equality of Misery raises it head again.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 05:59 PMHF
In the 1950’s allegedly some men beat up their wives and said racist things so we had to overthrow the twenty centuries of social norms which had created in Britain and Ireland remarkably stable and law abiding societies and replace them with what?
People “allegedly said racist things”? That is close to Holocaust denial. And “twenty centuries” of social norms? Victorian values were not kicking about for twenty centuries, Harry.
Societal breakdown with feral children who have never known male adult supervision, rampant drug taking and alcoholism (who seriously believes that alcohol consumption has declined in these islands since the 1950’s?), lawlessness, unlimited mass immigration, impotent policing, a massive increase in teenage pregnancies and abortions generally.
There is also a danger here of exaggerating the extent of the problem, here. If you want truly rampant crime, go to the cities of Brazil or Russia or any number of developing countries. Second, not everything can be put down to politics - we have become increasingly urbanised which places pressure on communities, and strides have been made since the 80’s in reducing the crime rate.
But we have abolished spouse abuse and racism haven’t we? Have we fuck!
But we have affected real change. A black man can plausible run for the Presidency of the United States. Black football players do not get monkey noises jeered at them. Gay people may marry. And so on.
Kensei I haven’t heard a single person advocating beating up gays here have you?
I have heard people with dog whistle “well, if they will flaunt”. I have also heard silence from people regarding the issue.
Curiously however there seems to be a growing demand to outlaw free speech that is deemed “offensive” by gays, I’m sure you’d oppose such illiberal Stalinism vigorously, wouldn’t you?
Of course I would. People have an absolute right to personal conscience. But you don’t have the right to shout fire in a crowded cinema (thank you US Supreme court), and you have to bear the consequences of your actions.
Anyway, once again, generate your very own Harry Flashman post:
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 07:45 PMWhy don’t they use the Maze/Long Kesh, now that it won’t be the site of a “National Stadium”, as a gay “re-education zone”? Perhaps H could stand for Homo…
Don’t be surprised if Comrade Peter redesigates them as “enemies of the people”. If the psychologist doesn’t work I’m sure water-boarding won’t be far behind.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:12 PMOnce again - just in case my previous was missed - thanks to the anti Iris posters(this is a very long thread - no thanks to you Continuous Dave and the Watchperson - ONLY JOKING!!)
But I think Dave the Watchman and Flash Harry have been consistent too . Pointing up the connection between things gay and liberal and awful and....social decline of life and the quality of free speech etc - so much power ascribed to such a very tiny minority - that really hardly exists here - in the terms that you find in parts of UK or Europe - where people don’t think the sky is going to fall on their heads because a man passes them in the street with his boy friend.
What then is the likely hood if they live here of them voting for the DUP or Unionist or enjoying OO marches? - answer very high as a gay lifestyle does not make someone raving liberal or radical. Social life here is effected by modernity and travel but as I said we have gay people who are also protestant preachers, Loyalists, police officers gays who are anti agreement and most importantly gays who will support Iris -whatever she does. And that is not going to change any time soon I wouldn’t call them abominations - I know them. Let me introduce to some of them…
One young man plays the flute in Orange Band and looks after his disabled father , another is a retired civil servant who is anti agreement and pro Iris his gay colleague who still works at Stormont who is very much opposed to Sinn Fein.
Then there is the gay policeman who actually knows Iris quite well -he could be described as one of the most important gay activists in the province. He meet her in a personal capacity seeking her help with the constant attacks on his home by young thugs. He asked to meet her again this week - this time in his official capicity- she refused. It’s protestants and unionists like these that DUP let down -because these members of our community believe that being gay is simply incidental to who they are and their values.
Some I argue with of course but generally I don’t as all they want is to live in peace as British subjects with the same rights as anybody else. A modest not a radical proposal.
But in the reactionary games that are played here they are often expendable. Two of them took their own lives last year.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:24 PMso we had to overthrow the twenty centuries of social norms which had created in Britain and Ireland remarkably stable and law abiding societies and replace them with what?
Harry, shall I expand on your thesis? Twenty centuries ago people in Britain (that’s pre-Roman invasion, you know) and Ireland lived in tribal, non-literate societies with only a rudimentary social structure, primitive economics, pagan religion, polygamy, human sacrifice, etc., etc. Somehow the social norms that shaped their lives remained constant through the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, two mass invasions of foreign peoples, the first of which in particular was characterised by massive forced movement of population and a reordering of the ethic map of these islands unparalleled since, the advent of a literate élite, the arrival of Christianity and its eventual adoption as a state religion, the transition from tribalism to pastoralim to feudalism to the squirearchy to capitalism, the advent of banking, the printing press, the telegraph, immunisation and modern medicine, the railway, radio, the aeroplane, the motor car, urbanisation and industrialisation, colonialism, the Reformation and the two centuries of relgious war that followed it, mass trade unionism, the transition from autocracy to parliamentarism to the universal francise, not to mention wars, plagues, dynastic intrigues, multiple changes in langauge and periods of mass immigration. The earthquake that ripped apart that bedrock of societal values, which apparently united my daily communicant, devoutly Catholic grandmothers (but not their heavy drinking, philandering, husbands) and pre-literate Celtic tribespeople whose idea of religious liturgy was to sacrifice their cousins on Lughnasa, was the evil 1960s and nasty liberals like Roy Jenkins allowed homosexuals to take drugs without hanging them.
Yeah, right.
I’ve run out of energy to respond to the rest of your post. If you think I’m a Marxist, you need to visit Iris’ pet shrink who can cure homosexuality. Gramsci is a very sharp analyst but his conclusions are the worst sort of Marxian tosh. Yes, I would contend that alcohol consumption was much higher, at least among adult men, 50 years ago than it is today. Just think how both prevalent drink driving and the lunchtime pint were just a few decades ago. And yes, the number of boys without male role models is pretty unique outside times of war or plague, is a direct consequence of genuinely history making advances in reproductive technology that cannot and should not be undone – thank God women are no longer chained to the sink – and your whingeing about the evils of the left and homosexuals does nothing to advance the debate on society addresses it.
The 1950s are not coming back, and as that means I do not have to fear blackmail, arrest, electric shocks, hormone therapy or losing my job just for loving the man I do and not being afraid to say so, I am glad.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2008 @ 12:50 AM
