"The amount of people who came out to vote is just such an emotional thing for us," said Fred Schelbaum, 48, standing with his civil partner Feargal Scott, 43, who he said he intended to marry.
"Up to now a lot of gay people felt they were tolerated in Ireland. Now we know that it's much more than that."
"The future for young LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people in this country is incredible," O'Neill said.
"I'm just glad to be here on the day this Ireland came into being."
"Up to now a lot of gay people felt they were tolerated in Ireland. Now we know that it's much more than that."
"The future for young LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people in this country is incredible," O'Neill said.
"I'm just glad to be here on the day this Ireland came into being."
42 comments:
Fred Schelbaum - a fine Irish name "Schelabaum". A wonder what part of Ireland he's from, County Cork or County Wurttemberg.
I hope people will now stop telling me that the Irish may be liberal on financial matters but are social conservatives.
They were tolerated and that wasn't good enough? I guess what conservatives say is true - they do really insist on being celebrated. You might get the impression they think they are better than the rest.
To expect more than tolerance is just selfish.
Celebrate me if I earn it from you, but otherwise just tolerate me as an equal and we're cool.
Wait until they start to demand that they can be married in Church.
I expect that to start on Monday.
The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has been reeling for many years because of the scandals of homosexual pedophile Catholic priests.
So sticking a thumb in the eye of the Church makes a lot of people very happy.
At least the Irish got to vote on it.
That will never happen in the United States.
If only we lived in a democracy.
The buzz with all the gays now is fuck Ptown and Fire Island.
Ireland is white hot now.
Gays love to travel and the marching order arrived today-Ireland!
Never has so much ink been spilled about an issue affecting so few.
Of course, as Trooper states, this is just the opening move in the long game being played by the Left against Christianity.
They tried to use the atheists to destroy the Boy Scouts but that didn't work, so they used the Gays, which *is* working.
How does, what, three percent? of the population get so much political clout?
How does, what, three percent? of the population get so much political clout?
Because of their disproportionate talents, contributions and compelling personal stories to tell in the modern world. And because people don't think hating for no reason is cool anymore.
This trumps present day Greece's blame-Nazi-Germany card!
Ritmo,
When exactly were gays "hated?"
What makes you think that they ever were?
The health hazard that the sexual behavior of gay men presents to the community has been recognized for millenia. Fear of the outcome of anal sex is pretty sensible. Those sexual practices caused the AIDS epidemic, which to date has killed 100 million people. Think of the Bible as the folk wisdom of ancient communities that suffered similar epidemics.
The "homophobes" are parents who want blood grandchildren... a matter of simple survival in farming economies.
I've lived in gay communities for decades in SF and NYC. Gay men do have a lot to fear... from other gay men. That life of hundreds of anonymous sex partners brings with it the constant danger of finally running into violence at the hands of a unhinged partner who doesn't understand the limits of the S&M and B&D games.
Ritmo,
When exactly were gays "hated?"
What makes you think that they ever were?
When their families told them (or implied) they'd be better off dead than incurring the "shame" of an honest reckoning of their condition on them.
When, as any boy knows, they've been way more prone to ceaseless harassment and senseless assault than other boys.
When their suicide rate greatly surpassed that of those who weren't.
I take it you grew up in a utopia where homosexuality was not a target for exclusion and greatly disproportionate ridicule.
I've lived in gay communities for decades in SF and NYC.
Totally the same thing as growing up anywhere else in America.
I've been close friends with gay men since I was a boy, Ritmo, since I share their very common interest in theater and music. The things you suggest happened to them did not. Everybody gets ridiculed and beat up for one reason or another in grade school and high school. I did and I'm as straight as you can get.
Despite your imputed deep intellectualism, a couple of very basic ideas seem never to have occurred to you.
1. There is a tragic reality to the human condition that isn't anybody's fault.
2. That tragic reality cannot be waved away and conjured into non-existence through the intellect.
You have always made this mistake of imagining that everything about the human condition is somebody's fault. It's a very childish and illiterate response that I've learned to expect from you.
But, whether or not I convince you no longer matters.
The two issues now bedeviling the West... the status of women and gays... will be, I predict, decided in full scale war with the rest of the world.
The reason for this, as I said, is that there are immutable realities to the human condition.
I foresee the West losing, too. And, this is not something I'm cheering for.
Totally the same thing as growing up anywhere else in America.
No, it isn't.
A very large percentage of gays leave their hometowns to live in the few cities that are gay meccas.
They do so, not to escape persecution, but for the sex parties, to live among their own kind and for the job opportunities in the industries they enjoy working in.
The persecution mythology is almost entirely precisely that.
Have a good night. I hope things are going well for you, Ritmo.
You have always made this mistake of imagining that everything about the human condition is somebody's fault. It's a very childish and illiterate response that I've learned to expect from you.
I see those who refuse to acknowledge the human contribution to the human condition as, in part, those refusers' faults.
It is not immature or illiterate to acknowledge human potential and the capacity to make certain things better or worse. Your vision of the world as irreparably tragic is an attitudinal choice, however, which some people share and which many do not. The founders most certainly did not.
What is certain though is that it is impossible to pursue free will and personal responsibility in a setting in which everything is supposed to go wrong as if by some preordained rule.
Have a good night.
The two issues now bedeviling the West... the status of women and gays... will be, I predict, decided in full scale war with the rest of the world.
The reason for this, as I said, is that there are immutable realities to the human condition.
I foresee the West losing, too. And, this is not something I'm cheering for.
I am very perplexed by this comment.
In it, you almost seem to be saying that the West will lose some "war" with "the rest of the world" (who, BTW? Muslims? And based on what? When has such a war over cultural issues ever been waged in history?) unless we adopt third-world standards for treating women and gays.
Should we become like Saudi Arabia, then? Which countries' low standard for treatment of gays and women are low enough for us to avoid war with them? Should we go all-out Boko Haram and prevent their being educated, also? And should we hang gays or stone them or is it sufficient just to make sure they have less rights to pursue happiness and/or matrimony on the same non-procreative basis that we've always allowed for straight folks?
I'm very tired, and as I said, I think that the die is cast on a global level, which makes our disagreement moot.
We're world's apart even in thinking about the sphere in which these issues play out.
I don't see political/intellectual discussion as having much to do with this stuff.
I don't see these issues are new, or that what is happening now is new. Human history is cyclical, not progressive. Societies have taken the route the West has taken repeatedly as they've achieved affluence. This is not the first time for this rodeo. And, I suspect the outcome will be the same as it has always been.
We're world's apart even in thinking about the sphere in which these issues play out.
It's interesting to know that I can find reasons for my thoughts. You seem content with just giving mantras and tragic predictions. There's a psychic down the street from me who does the same thing, but she usually charges. I'm not sure why you don't consider that your predictions result from your insistence on seeing the world as one huge continuing catastrophe - differing minute-to-minute on the basis of only whether we can "see" the catastrophe or not. You have my sympathy though, as your approach sounds horribly defeatist and depressing.
Human history is cyclical, not progressive. Societies have taken the route the West has taken repeatedly as they've achieved affluence. This is not the first time for this rodeo. And, I suspect the outcome will be the same as it has always been.
Culture determines everything and in an era where everyone's addicted to widespread technology allowing them to communicate with anyone, anywhere at any time, it seems highly unlikely that the globalization resulting from wouldn't prevent a singular society from dominating it, while rising and falling, and going away. You seem to want to superimpose the age of empires and national dominance on one in which there is a U.N., widespread (and growing) democracy, prosperity based on human development rather than on national/imperial raiding and conquest and mass communication available to everyone.
But regarding cyclicality, I believe Hindus share that belief. So it's ironically not all that "Western" to fear that the doom you feel for the same Western civ that you claim to want to preserve is inevitable.
Western civilization is about nothing if not hope and that same "progress" that you find unpleasant. It started with rationality and the Greeks, who might have still used auricles, but at least stressed the importance of finding reasons for why things do or do not, would or would not occur, and how.
Societies that descend into decadence... in particular homosexual decadence destroy themselves.
You think this is something new, Ritmo.
It isn't.
Nor is your sneering belief that the contemporary era somehow is different.
The Mandarin class of every super affluent society in human history has affected homosexuality as a signifier of high class. That is always suicidal.
The West is committing slow suicide.
It's interesting that you obsess so over gays being called bad names, and complete elide over the 100 million deaths caused by the behavior of gay man. I've learned to expect that.
You might want to think about why you perform that little trick.
And, it's not the West vs. Islam.
It's the West vs. Russia, all of Asia (with a few tiny exceptions) and Islam. Not to mention all those within the West who favor the old ways.
The decadent West is emotionally, spiritually and physically exhausted and just wants to party, as you do. The sour, angry stuff you do is anger because you think somebody is getting in the way of the party.
The party will last right up to the moment when serious men gain enough strength to put an end to it. Might be tomorrow. Might be in a generation or two.
Enjoy it while you can.
Thanks for the interesting and, as usual, combative conversation, Ritmo.
I highly recommend today's (Sunday) Dilbert. Related to our discussion, I think.
"the 100 million deaths caused by the behavior of gay man"
Where are you getting those facts to make your assertions, ST? Your 100 million estimate is off by a factor of more than 2. Another fact you should look up: HIV has been transmitted mostly by 1. heterosexuals? or 2. homosexuals? You might be surprised.
"I did and I'm as straight as you can get."
This is another misconception about HIV, and the boast in ST's assertion could be the tell.
Maybe you are in fact straight but whether you say you are or seem to be straight is no assurance that you won't transmit HIV through (homo or hetero) sexual behavior. Thousands of heterosexual women have become infected with HIV by having heterosexual sex with men who appear to be asymptomatic and straight but are in fact carrying the virus that leads to AIDS.
Fact is, in the U.S., the AIDS epidemic is a small fraction of what it was when it peaked back when Shouting Thomas was living in the Village in NY and the Castro district of SF.
With modern medical treatment for HIV, it's reasonable to assert that in the U.S., stigma and shame — the type promulgated by individuals such as Shouting Thomas — and not same sex marriage in Ireland are the biggest barriers to people starting treatment after being diagnosed as HIV positive.
With modern medical treatment for HIV, it's reasonable to assert that in the U.S., stigma and shame — the type promulgated by individuals such as Shouting Thomas — and not same sex marriage in Ireland are the biggest barriers to people starting treatment after being diagnosed as HIV positive.
Why yes, Meade. HIV is not ebola and there's no reason why HIV shouldn't become as common as the cold or even cold sores. We can live with it! And there is absolutely no baked in healthcare costs to treating preventable diseases these days thanks to Obamacare.
Am I hearing you right?
Hell, maybe next, Dan Savage will get the crazy idea of spreading HIV on door handles at a Republican convention instead of the flu virus.
You practice safe sex, right?
Erections have consequences and I take responsibility, yes.
Russia is in a state of humungous decline in both its population and influence, politically and financially. Asia is finding that its only way forward is by becoming increasingly "Western".
And I have yet to understand how anyone can explain that homosexuality "caused" any society to be destroyed. As far as I know, the Greeks are still around. And Romans became Italians. But they were not destroyed. Nor did they ever stop reproducing. Their empires might have ended, but that happens to every empire, as empire is an inherently untenable state of affairs. China's and Persia's empires also ended (as did several in Africa and the New World) and I don't see anyone finding that there was "sufficiently pervasive homosexuality" to blame as a cause of those things happening, also.
At the most you might be able to say that homosexuality is anti-Roman empire, but not anti-Greek empire because Rome overtook Greece at a time when homosexuality was just as prevalent and not scandalous. Hell! You might as well say that homosexuality made it possible for the Greek and Roman empires to flourish as it was just as tolerated at their beginnings as at their ends! Ha!
In one of the most counterintuitive findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.
Which means that more than 95 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with homosexuality. The Catholic church would be wise (and is wise) to exclude form seminary training those who are homosexual, "out" or otherwise.
Priests should be neither openly gay nor openly straight. They willingly take a vow of celibacy, and that is how they should identify.
"Which means that more than 95 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with homosexuality."
Are you sure about that or are you just making stuff up in order to confirm your biases? Can you show us your work in how you reached that conclusion? I think you're smarter than that, Michael, which makes me suspicious that you are intentionally misreporting the findings in order to deceive.
From the article: "The [John Jay] report notes that homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this cohort entered the priesthood, in the mid-1980s, the reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests began to drop and then to level off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church.
Many more boys than girls were victimized, the report says, not because the perpetrators were gay, but simply because the priests had more access to boys than to girls, in parishes, schools and extracurricular activities."
The conclusion is in the details of the article you linked, Meade.
I know that it is very, very difficult for you to imagine that gays can do anything wrong, but there it is.
Meade, are you pleased that you have a right to speak freely here at Lem's, while at the same time Mrs. Meade denies that right to others on her blog?
That liberal "tolerance" thing is really as mythical as unicorns, isn't it?
"The conclusion is in the details of the article you linked, Meade."
I know you aren't stupid so I can only assume you are lying. Or will you show me exactly where it is in article I linked, Michael, that your conclusion that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia "means that more than 95 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with homosexuality."
"Meade, are you pleased that you have a right to speak freely here at Lem's..."
As you in particular know, Michael, I have had many of my comments here at Lem's denied by blog administrators.
It's not something I cry about. Why should you?
The 95 percent of sbusive priests who weren't pedophiles were adult males who abused adolescent males. In other words, homosexual men who groomed and preyed upon young males. You can deny it, but that's where the truth resides.
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is a perfect example. A gay Archbishop Rembert Weakland relocated numerous priests accused of preying on young males from one parish to another rather than having them removed from the priesthood.
You cannot deny that it happened in dioceses in many parts of America.
As to comments, I deleted yours when you were being a dick. Mrs Meade prevents comments she disagrees with from ever being seen. Big difference.
It's true that I may be a dick.
But it's also true that you are an insufficiently closeted liar.
And tomorrow, I may be an even bigger dick.
You, however, Michael, will still be halfway stuck in the doorway of your shoddy closet of lies.
You're calling me a liar, Meade? You're full of shit. Prove it. And prove that I'm "closeted", whatever that means.
Meade, here is an article describing former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland (finally) admitting that he is gay. Link here.
And here is the list of priests in the Milwaukee Archdiocese that Weakland protected by moving from parish to parish each time they were accused of sexually abusing minors. Link here. If you click on each name, you'll get a history of where they were moved.
Some were/are pedophiles, some were/are gay. Regardless, do you see why the Catholic church is so hesitant to allow men who are openly gay to serve as priests?
Look at it from a legal perspective and imagine a plaintiff's attorney asking "Archbishop, given all the Church knows about pedophile and homosexual priests, why did you choose to let Father Soandso into the seminary and priesthood, knowing the risks involved?"
I understand that form your perspective gays can do no wrong, but the reality is far more harsh that that happy belief.
Sacred Heart Seminary in Suburban Milwaukee is one of the largest seminaries in America specializing in educating men over age 30 for the priesthood. It is an extraordinary place; I have met several parish priests who were trained there, and they were/are outstanding pastors.
But look at this.
Officials of the seminary, Sacred Heart School of Theology, also confirmed in a recent interview with The Milwaukee Journal that two students were dismissed within the past two years for gay-related sexual activity and that a third has been ordered to divest his interest in two gay bars in another state.
There's more, and you can read the entire article at this link.
Last, you have accused me of being "closeted", whatever the hell that means. So there is no confusion, I will state exactly what I believe.
First, I believe that any couple should be able to obtain a marriage license from an appropriate legal official.
Second, I believe that same sex couple should be able to get married in any church of any denomination that practices same sex marriage.
Third, I believe that the religious organizations whose theology prohibits performing a same sex marriage should not be compelled to do so by force of law, whether directly or indirectly via government removal of tax exempt status or other forms harassment.
Regarding Catholic Church specifically, I believe that that the Church for very good reason should prohibit men who are openly gay to serve as priests, just as it should prohibit men who are openly heterosexual from serving as priests. A vow of celibacy is just that, whether gay or straight. And the recent history of abuse by priests who are pedophiles and homosexuals makes that a very compelling argument.
It isn't hatred of gays, Meade, it's risk management.
My link to the list of priest abusers in Milwaukee failed. I'll try it again here.
Post a Comment