Catholic Church Must End Campaign of Villification

by SPySPotter Sun Aug 03, 2003 19:54

If anyone has questions to answer about Homophobia then it is the SP/CWI. The following piece by Dennis Tourish has never been responed to by the SP:

"Demands for gay liberation were ignored in public, but behind the scenes were treated with contempt. Some CWI leaders argued privately that homosexuality always increased during periods of social disintegration, such as occurred during the fall of the Roman Empire. Its emergence as an issue now was simply one more symptom of capitalism’s degeneration, and impending collapse."

Well, well.

Will the SP and Liz(Oisin) please tell us when the CWI ceased to be homophobic?

by Spart - ICL Sat Aug 02, 2003 17:26

that it's bound to be wide enough to take a huge fat cock.

by Gurrier Sat Aug 02, 2003 16:10

I'd say your ass is _very_ well designed to take mickies up it.

by iosaf Sat Aug 02, 2003 14:37

any other use of marriage is immoral.

by Seáinín Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:49

although I disagree with him on birth control. Homosexuality is a congenital disorder and should not be regarded as an alterntive lifestyle. It's a disorder because homosexuals behave in a manner contrary to that for which their bodies are designed. Maybe someday there'll be a cure. Of course should homosexuals be persecuted, they didn't and wouldn't choose to be abnormal.

by Spart - ICL Sat Aug 02, 2003 01:05

petty bourgeois anarchist McSimoin and reformist capitalist lackey Muldowney recently came together in an unholy union of the bourgeois institution of marraige!

And they call themselves revolutionaries!

Down with this sort of thing!

by Ali la Pointe - fu-fighting anti-imperialistas Fri Aug 01, 2003 20:03

As an interesting aside this is in the Pat Finucane Centre's june log of hate mongering:

The Reverend David McIlveen, a minister in the Paisleyite fundamentalist Free Presbyterian Church, vowed to protest against the showing in Belfast of a performance by the London Gay Men’s Chorus. “Sodomy is really a sexual perversion” he said “ It is totally abhorrent and lowers the moral standard”. He deplored the moral decline that he said was initiated by the peace process in its attempts to accommodate “every vile practise”. (CW, AN)


Smash sectarianism! Burn your own churches!

by John Francis Fri Aug 01, 2003 18:50

Sinn Fein has consistently been on the side of supporting bigotry and discrimination with regard to the NY Patricks Day parade.
Sinn Fein has participated in the NY parade even though they have banned and prevented from marching: lesbians and gay men, families and members of The Bloody Sunday Committee, Friends of Roisin McAliskey,and people with free Joe Doherty sashes. Sinn Fein knows this history.

As to the issue of 'queers are aloud to march as long as they dont have a banner'. Every group has a banner in the parade- unions, nurses, high schools, Irish dance schools, Hibernians, cops, soldiers, Irish Speakers, colleges -just not queers and certain kind of Irish Republicans. Why doesn't anyone ever suggest getting rid of all banners, and marching behind one? Because that would be ridiculous, limiting and hopefully the Irish and Irish-American community is more diverse and multi-identified. But why the double standard? Certain people can identify there group and others are not allowed to.

by Kev Fri Aug 01, 2003 17:38

I agree with the poster who said that marraige outmoded. But Pat C is absolutley right when he says it is a matter of choice. Implying that homosexuals, or anyone, SHOULD NOT get married -end of story- is just as bad as saying that they should not be allowed.

I absolutely support the right for same sex marraiges to take place, and I think the Pope should keep his nose out of it. But, then again, I'm not going to bother arguing for reform within the Church, because I fucking hate it. Let them expose themsleves as the total reactionaries that they are.

I also think it's bizaare to accuse Sinn Fein of homophobia. Ok, they may have members who are, but many of my family are shinners and supporters and they certainly aren't anti-gay. The NYC Paddy's Day parade on the other hand is an issue that needs to be addressed. A bit like when Gerry met George.

by John Meehan Fri Aug 01, 2003 17:02

The questions to SF about the NY Paddy's Day parade are legitimate - perhaps the discussion could be re-focused on what people in Ireland and abroad can do between now and March 17 2004 to put pressure on the New York organisers to lift the anti-gay ban - or else face some kind of boycott or some other kind of effective protest.

Incidentally, the party led by Gerry Adams is not the only Irish political party or organisation which which sends representative to the NY parade - for example the Irish government, Fianna Fáil, various business organisations, and so on. Shame on the lot of them.

by Janus Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:53

Liz you start by thanking him for clarifying what seems to have been a fuck-up on the Late Late and then accuse him of deliberately fucking up to hide SF's policy on this? Which is it? Do you accept whoever they had on the programme made an honest mistake or not? SF was the first party in Ireland to support full adoption rights for homosexual couples, I don't think they're hiding on the issue.

On the parade, it's a disgrace they're involved, though the parade btw does not ban gay people from marching, simply bans gay banners and the like. Not defending it, just correcting inaccuracies as I go. Would also be curious to hear Justin's answer.

by Ray Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:44

Marriage may be a religious sacrament, but in this state (and many others) its possible to be married without there being any religious element to the proceedings. In fact, the Registry Office in Dublin have a strict ban on any religious features in a civil wedding.
Since these civil weddings involve _only_ the two persons being married and the state, and the church has nothing to do with it, there is no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed have a civil wedding, and be recognised as married by the state. Furthermore, as long as the state supports the institution of civil marriage, by recognising the relationship, and providing tax breaks etc for married couples, preventing gay people from getting married is serious discrimination.

by Liz Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:33

Thanks Justin for clarifying the point about the late,late show.

I'm glad to know that Sinn Fein is happy to support gays and lesbians as long as its behind close doors, but aren't too happy about coming out of the closet in front of the nation on programmes like the Late, Late.

But what about the Paddy's day parade in New York which won't allow Irish Americans to participate, simply because they are gay. How can Sinn Fein continue, year in and year out to support such bigots?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Féin Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:06 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Just to clarify the references made to the OSF Late Late Show appearance. A representative of Ográ Shinn Féin represented the party on a Late Late show broadcast in the run up to the election. He was asked whether Sinn Féin supported same-sex marriages and he stated that we did not. This statement was inaccurate and was clarified the next day by the party.

There have been several statements on the issue since then and a policy document entitled Moving On is available here http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/Policies_LGB.pdf It's a little dated.

by pat c Fri Aug 01, 2003 16:00

Its a question of choice, I also think marriage is outmoded, but some people wish to marry.

by Jimmy Sands Fri Aug 01, 2003 15:54

Why do homosexuals feel the need to reproduce the chains that bind heterosexuals.

Because we (straights) are coerced into the marriage construct to protect children/ stay at home mothers and let's face it to validate the childhood fantasies sold to little girls does not mean that homosexuals need be bound in the same way.

Far from deserving the support of left/progressive elements 'gay marriage' is a retrograde construct that reproduces a restrictive set of conditions which homosexuals do not need.

Furthermore to demand that the Pope not make his opinions on religious matters clear is absurd and an example of the overweening arrogance of the republican movement. Marriage involves the persons concerned, the state and also God. I feel that the latter 2 have no place in the bedroom and God has made his opinions on homosexuality very clear (even the most depraved late leatherman might get bored with being tortured after a couple of million years).

I fully accept that some homosexuals,those who are dying for example might wish to have their signifigcant other brought into their family legally but this should be possible without constructing some sort of marriage analogue just as the breeder population abandon it.

by pat c Fri Aug 01, 2003 15:46

Whats This about OSF ?

Sinn Fein has openly supported Gay Rights since at least 1981, thats the first time I remember them making a formal statement on it. So its possible they did so long before that.

During the H-Blocks/Armagh campaign, there was a Gay/Lesbian action group.

by petrushka og Fri Aug 01, 2003 15:37

Sinn Fein still supports the homophobic St Patrciks day parade in New York City. Maybe their anti-homophobic rhetoric vis a vis the church could be put into practice on the 17th. Or is Sinn Feins right wing american financiers too important.

by John Meehan Fri Aug 01, 2003 15:29

Sinn Féin's statement is very good - I hope other political parties say similar things - the vatican has a damned cheek putting out anti-gay material like this.

by Mark Fri Aug 01, 2003 15:23

Fair play to Sinn Fein for taking this stance. Better late than never. Its a pity that when ogra sinn féin were on the late, late show about a year ago that they chose not to support same sex partnerships.

Good to see that the grown up party is a bit more progressive and radical than the young ones.