Oliver Milne is a freelance journalist and editor of the Glasgow Guardian,the University of Glasgow’s Student Newspaper. He tweets nonsense as @OliverMilne.
Today we saw two Scotlands. Through twin media narratives we saw to the heart of what is a deeply fractured society; at once progressive and deeply conservative. For Scotland, within the United Kingdom or without, to fulfil its true potential for its citizens we need to forcefully challenge bigotry in our civil society.
Tartaglia’s hateful and ignorant tirade on the death of the much respected David Cairns MP presents a much bigger problem for Scotland than the political struggle which will accompany any equal marriage bill. Religious observance, or at least organised religious observance, is experiencing a dramatic decline in Scotland today. Despite only 1 in 10 Scots attending religious services we are still the the most religious of the nations that make up Great Britain and the social and political influences of our religious organisations are not to be ignored.
The bill will pass, and most likely with a comfortable majority, even if Cardinal Keith O’Brian lives up to his promise of pouring £100 million into lobbying and campaigning against it. The success of the law,however, is greatly diminished when the religious organisations which make up a huge section of our civil society preach intolerance and hatred, and disguise it as morality. As citizens, religious or otherwise, we have a duty to our polity to ensure equal protection for all members of our society. This means when necessary denouncing entrenched religious groups who wield their considerable influence – directly through lobbying or indirectly from the pulpit – not to enrich our society or protect their practitioners but to demonize and harass.
My relationship with religion is a deeply contradictory one but I could be described as a lapsed Catholic. The Catholic church has a simultaneously horrendous and honourable history. It has ruined lives and oppressed those it considered different leaving painful and visible scars on our social fabric. But it is also responsible for the largest non-government directed foreign aid program and the education of children in parts of the world where few NGOs dare venture. One does not cancel out the other, like most institutions it exists in shades of grey.
When in the 11th century the Catholic Church clamped down on the ability of priests to buy positions of power (simony) or to marry (nicolaitism) they did so largely because it reflected not only scripture but a sense of a deep injustice felt by the people of Europe. In short, the church has always adapted to reflect the injustices confirmed to them by their congregations and wider society.
With this in mind we must not let this opportunity pass. I will be writing to Archbishop-Elect Tartaglia to express my horror at his sentiments and to ask that in light of seeing the hurt his comments have caused that he considers his own unjustifiable prejudices and the unjustifiable prejudices of the Catholic Church in Scotland.
This battle isn’t limited to Catholics. As ordinary Scottish Muslims observe Ramadan they too should reflect on the hate expressed on their behalf by their Imams and speak out against intolerance. The Kirk has argued that the Scottish Government has moved ahead of the will of ordinary people of Scotland. I think that’s nonsense and that we should tell them so.
Today we saw two Scotlands but both need not survive. If ensuring a bright future for the progressive Scotland after the equal marriage bill means forcing a frank but respectful debate about equality with the other Scotland then I’ll see you early Sunday morning.
#1 by Iain Menzies on July 25, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Im sorry but having read this i dont see that you are saying much more than if you dont support gay marriage you are a bigot.
I dont. Am i a bigot?
#2 by James on July 25, 2012 - 7:36 pm
Most probably, yes. If you prejudge a couple of consenting adults (“are they same sex or mixed sex?” is a prejudgement) before deciding whether they should be allowed to get married, you’re prejudiced. There might be a narrow space between prejudice and bigotry but I’m not yet convinced.
#3 by Aidan on July 25, 2012 - 8:04 pm
Yep. Sorry. If you find that problematic I suggest examining your beliefs about same sex relationships and if you really think they’re as good as mixed relationships.
#4 by Iain Menzies on July 25, 2012 - 10:24 pm
See i dont think i will be reexamining my views on any kind of relationship.
I dont accept that if you dont support gay marriage then you somehow dont value same sex relationships.
What i think is interesting tho is that if you dont support this then you get two left wingers, yourself and james here, calling me a bigot. Purely on the basis that i dont support gay marriage. To say that is to prejudge me. I have said nothing with regards if i believe that straight couples should be able to marry. I have made no comment on the nature of marriage. Or on relaitionships.
Kinda sad that you guys want to run out and do a gordon brown.
#5 by Aidan on July 26, 2012 - 12:20 am
Do you think there should be no state recognition of relationships or that that recognition should be limited to civil partnership only? I guess the key point here turns on the state prohibition on religious recognition of same sex relationships and subsequent civil distinction drawn re insurance.
To clarify, if you think same sex and mixed sex couples should have exactly identical rights i apologise and withdraw my prior remarks.
#6 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 12:48 am
I thik that certain rights and entitlements should be transferable between couples, irrespective of gender mix.
Pensions (according to the pension provision) for example.
I thought long before we had civil partnerships that all the next of kin stuff should be something you have much more control over.
The problem i have is that i just dont see the point in any of this.
And frankly is a bunch of equality activists (gay or otehrwise) think it should be equal that seems to me like a really silly reason to piss off alot of people, irrespective of how much we do or do not like certain peoples views.
#7 by Aidan on July 26, 2012 - 12:58 am
Your argument is that some people should be denied the same rights as other people because a third, unaffected group of people will be annoyed?
#8 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 1:04 am
what rights? seriously if there are rights that are denied i dont know what they are, other than the use of a word.
#9 by Aidan on July 26, 2012 - 1:08 am
Apart from the obvious right to a religious celebration of that relationship, there are a number of differences set out in the consultation. There are also issues people reassinging their gender having to dissolve and then reaffirm their civil partnership or marriage in the other form.
If your argument is that civil partnerships and marriage are essentially the same and that this isn’t a big deal then this is essentially a minor legislative change and nobody should be worried about it.
#10 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 1:18 am
Well from that…
There may be an issue with a Court of Session Declarator. You dont need Gay Marriage to change that.
The fourth bullet in point five is possibly the silliest reason for gay marriage i have ever heard, again you dont need gay marriage to cnahge that difference, just let whoever is running the ceremony to say something.
On the divorce stuff…..again all you have to do is amend the legislation on civil partnerships. Course there is then the issue of wheter or not the ease of divorce is a good thing or not.
As for people seeing the two as being different, which people? If its the wider public, then thats not going to change in the near future what ever it is call since there with be a distinct lack of gender diversity in the relationship.
#11 by Indy on July 26, 2012 - 12:43 am
It’s not even about same sex marriage any more though. The polls show that public opinion is split two thirds in favour of same sex marriage and one third against. That one third has a right to be against same sex marriage and to express that. And religious leaders have a right to express their oppsition as well.
But when you get to the point of people saying that being gay will basically make you die that’s just crazy and worse. It’s just totally unacceptable. And picking a real person and using him as a made up example irrespective of the feelings of his partner, his family and friends – what on earth is that about? Especially when David Cairns’ partner actually went on the radio and said what the medical conditions were that caused his death and they had nothing at all to do with his sexuality. But then the RC spokesperson doesn’t retract anything, he goes on to defend it and make it much much worse by making further sweeping statements which are just garbage. Worst of all using suicide statistics to try and support his case. No thought as to why – if gay people are more likely to commit suicide – that might be the case! No recognition of the fact that the kind of hatred he is peddling might be a factor.
It is actually an outrage. That should not have been broadcast, it just shouldn’t have been.
#12 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 12:54 am
On the specifics of his comments i dont have that much of a problem with them. and i shall tell you why.
I think there is an issue with the healthyness of the lifestyle of (many) gay men, tho not so much gay women.
Those gay people that i know are much more likely to be drinking to excess, and taking a much wider range of drugs, and for a longer period of thier life, than the straight people i know.
And thats before we start talking about barebacking.
I think there is a real issue with the ‘gay lifestyle’ that isnt talked about because if you do you get called homophobic or a bigot.
That seemed to be in part what the Archbish was saying.
What i dont think he was saying was that Cairns died because he was gay.
Would it probably have been better if he hadnt mentioned Cairns at all, yes. But i dont really think that what the BBC is saying he said, apparently come time ago, is really that big of a deal.
#13 by Indy on July 26, 2012 - 1:03 am
You don’t get this so no further point in discussing it really.
#14 by Alec on July 26, 2012 - 9:56 am
Given your comments in this thread, I find it difficult to believe that you know many gays: or, at least, don’t have a familiar enough acquaintance with them to comment on their attitudes.
What is it about those who think homosexuals should take the back seat on the civil rights bus that they’re preoccupied with male homosexual acts? It’s like John Littledick who’d go on and on about it, far more even than heterosexuals thinking about heterosexual acts.
Since the 1990s, the majority HIV and other STI transmission via sexual contact has been heterosexual not male homosexual. Your attitudes on this, like not a few others, are out-of-date.
He died due to acute pancreatitis. What the Dickens’ does that have to do with sexual behaviour?
~alec
#15 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 10:39 pm
Your right i dont know anything about gay people or same sex relationships.
how well you know me.
I mean ive only been in a same sex relationship for the past 4 years.
#16 by Commenter on July 26, 2012 - 12:35 pm
Iain, there may be health impacts of some behaviours that some gay men (and some straight men) get up to, but the way I see it, it’s like the issue of alcohol abuse:
The government should stay out of legislating to influence private individuals’ behaviour on health grounds. Imagine if the government were to introduce some sort of minimum pricing on alcohol. That would impact those who abuse alcohol and also those who don’t – unfair. The Scottish Government wouldn’t think to interfere in peoples’ lives like that.
#17 by Alec on July 25, 2012 - 8:32 pm
Iain, what d’you believe marriage should traditionally represent?
Answer quickly, ‘cos I have a coffee and doughnut waiting for when you give an answer which has little bearing on historical fact!
~alec
#18 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 12:39 am
I dont see why it matters what i believe marriage should traditionally represent.
Infact thats a question that i can make no sense of what so ever.
As for my familiarity with historical fact, and yours, I have a Degree in history form the University of Dundee. I have no idea what your qualifications are to provide any comment on the historical accuracy, or otherwise, of any claim to historical fact, if there is indeed such a thing.
Course the wider question has to be does it matter what marriage was, cos it certainly wasnt very gay. The question is should it be, and as such what should marriage be. As the nats are always telling us….its about the future.
#19 by Alec on July 26, 2012 - 1:01 am
So, why are you bothered about changes which introducing gay marriage would represent?
Unless your honours level or above studies were on the Historical Basis of Marriage in European Cultures and How It Relates to My Thoughts On Gay Marriage, I don’t see what insight it offers you for this. I’d go as far as saying it has as little bearing on the matter in hand as a history graduate whose honours level or above studies were on the Cold War relates to the political effects of the transition from the slave trade to palm oil commerce in the nineteenth century Kingdom of Dahomey.
The times are gone when the possession of a university degree is thought to confers on the holder an unassailable insight into all other things, if my name’s not Jude Fawley!
Nor was it very based on two people in love choosing to marry rather than part of a clear economic partnership between their families, to give but one example. As little as a century ago, marriage – or, more accurately, the cost of a marriage certificate – was beyond the reach of many of the urban poor: when military pensions were being allocated after the Great War, the moral guardians of our land were horrified to realize the sheer number of claimants who had not married their men.
~alec
#20 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 1:11 am
Your use of quotations are impressive. but only that.
If you had asked what i think marriage did represent traditionally, not what it should have you wouldnt have been asking a, frankly, stupid question.
As for the holding of a degree, one thing that most modern history degrees does give a graduate is far too much social history. And one of the things that you get from that is that marriage was not a monolithic institution. The ability to buy a marriage certificate did not stop people living as if they were married. Now im not a legal historian so i may be wrong, but i was rather under the impression thats where the idea of common law marriage came from.
The point rather is that you set yourself up as an arbiter of historical fact or reality. On what basis can you do that?
#21 by Alec on July 26, 2012 - 1:49 am
I’m at a complete loss as to what that is supposed to signify. You say you have a university degree. In that case, you should appreciate the point of indicating which text/statements being addressed so to aid understanding, and to save on laboriously writing out “where you said such-and-such”.
And the difference between a quote and quotation.
Okay, I jumped to conclusions. I assumed you were basing your
bigotryopposition to gay marriage on some sort of appeal to the tradition of marriage. If you were, in fact, basing it solely on your personal feelings of prejudice towards gays, I’ll take it backSo, once again, why are you getting het-up about the latest innovation to marriage?
It meant they weren’t married in the eyes of the self-appointed moral guardians of the day, as well as the law not least with the allocation of widows’ pensions.
I hate it when post modernism ventures forth from literary theory. That is what you are doing, both about my conduct and the appropriateness of gay marriage.
~alec
#22 by Allan on July 25, 2012 - 9:25 pm
Ummm, probably yes. Especially if you are going to spout the “its not normal” rubbish that Christian fundamentalists are prone to spouting.
#23 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 12:43 am
Well….its not normal. in so far as the vast majority of humanity dont indulge.
i dont know that ive ever heard a christian fundamentalist say it wasnt anyway. Usually they go it not being natural. Which depending on how you define natural it might not be.
Of course the biggest problem with your comment, which personally i dont think reflects well on you, is that you have assumed that i am a christian fundamentalist that doesnt like the gays.
I am broadly christian and i dont much like the gays, but then i dont much like anyone else overly much either.
#24 by Alec on July 26, 2012 - 10:38 am
It might not be common, but that is not the same as abnormal. Unless you’re about to tell us that non-whites in this country should accept lesser civil rights than whites ‘cos they aint ‘normal’/common (certainly, less numerous than gays).
Spare us the passive aggression. You’ve spent this thread telling us that two identified consenting adults should not have access to the full social and civil rights as other identified consenting adults – in oblique, non-committal ways almost as if you want to admit to something but don’t quite have the courage to do so – and now, when linked to groups which share pretty much those truncated views, retreat into absurd petulance in an attempt to transfer narrow-mindedness onto others.
If you don’t want people to presume things on a blog about you with absolutely are pertinent to your stated views, don’t presume to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in their daily lives without affecting you in any way.
Indeed Allan said no such thing. He suggested you share views with “Christian fundamentalists”, which aint the same thing. Then, to cap it all, you go on to concur which just that stated view.
You say you have a history degree. Was it Hons?
~alec
#25 by Allan on July 26, 2012 - 7:29 pm
“Well….its not normal. in so far as the vast majority of humanity dont indulge” – Well, apart from asking how you know that the vast majority of humanity don’t indulge, why is it not normal?
“i dont know that ive ever heard a christian fundamentalist say it wasnt anyway.” – Try looking for Keith O’Brein’s rant the last time he was on GMS… the one the MacBloggosphere was all silent about but was first up on that week’s Question Time when Will Young (and the rest of the largely English panel) took him to task.
Actualy, i wasn’t assuming that you were one of those christian fundamentalists… see the use of the words “probably.. Especially if…”. Though I see from the other comments you have been making that you have been using an awful lot of rope for your petard.
#26 by Observer on July 25, 2012 - 7:58 pm
Tartaglia’s comments on David Cairns defied belief. The fact that David Cairns was a Catholic himself just makes it worse. When you look at the language used by the likes of Tartaglia & O’Brien in relation to homosexuality it betrays a mindset which really does believe that homosexuals are abhorrent, grotesque, degenerate – a threat. I try to be a tolerant atheist, I accept that religious people have their views & beliefs & I respect that even if I can’t respect what they believe.
But Tartaglia, O’Brien et al go completely over the top when they talk about homosexuals. Their language & insinuations are not tolerable & we don’t need to pussyfoot around it. If it walks like a bigot & talks like a bigot – then it’s a bigot.
#27 by Alec on July 25, 2012 - 8:31 pm
They showed an attitude which leaves us struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. It’s like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo.
But, unbelievable? Nope.
Euphemistically, I’ll describe him as someone whose physique suggests certain health problems.
~alec.
#28 by gavin on July 25, 2012 - 8:05 pm
I am not religious, though I have known some wonderful people who were believers. I have read the Bible and have come to the conclusion that, within its remarkable pages, there would be something for everyone, stone a sinner, love mankind. My problem, in Scotland, is that this, all too human debate has been highjacked for political purposes to the detriment of us all. Its a great pity that the media in Scotland is both so obvious and so shallow, we can ignore the press, but considering what we pay for the BBC, we surely deserve better.
#29 by Allan on July 25, 2012 - 9:59 pm
“we are still the the most religious of the nations that make up Great Britain and the social and political influences of our religious organisations are not to be ignored.”
I don’t think they should be ignored, but kindly told once in a while to shut up. Especially when the contribution adds nothing to hte debate.
I think that in general there is a global radicalisation process going on with organised religion, which the Scottish branch of one of the Christian sects seems to be fully part of. Certainly the radicalisation of the Roman Catholic Church can be traced back to the election of Pope John Paul II (which itself happened around about the time of the fall of the Shah in Iran and the rise of Evangelical Middle America – all key events in this shift). The appointment of Tartaglia certainly fits into this narrative, considering that the man that used to be known as Cardinal Ratzenberger is less of a moderate than his predicessor as Pope.
While in America, they have embraced this radicalisation, even adopting it into their politics. We have kind of feared the power of organised religion in this country. There was no voices speaking out against the threats against Salman Rushdie in 1989, while politicians of both colours have shyed away from scrapping the Dominational/non-Dominational divide in our education. Indeed the only time (until now) that our politicians have stood up to the Religious lobby was the long overdue scrapping of Section 28.
I hope that today was a turning point, that the influence of the organised religeous lobby now starts to wane. Somehow i doubt it.
#30 by Shuna on July 25, 2012 - 11:02 pm
I am religious, a minister of the Kirk and the news today was a great step forward and I am really pleased the Govt have done so. Well done Eck and co (not something I say often, if at all).
What I find frustrating in this is that all us religious folk get tarred with the same brush. There are a great number of Church of Scotland members and ministers who support same sex marriage. Unfortunately because of our decision making process the only comment open to those who make press statements is the current recorded status of not supporting. Things hopefully will change as next year we debate again ministers and same sex relationships again! I could launch into a sermon on issues that JC cared more about but will resist. I just ask that readers of this blog do not assume all religious people are agin same sex marriage and tell people so. Cause our press seemed to ignore this.
#31 by Doug Daniel on July 26, 2012 - 10:08 am
“I just ask that readers of this blog do not assume all religious people are agin same sex marriage and tell people so. Cause our press seemed to ignore this.”
True, but opposition is far more prevalent amongst religious people than non-religious, and it’s important that we acknowledge this. I’ve had three people comment on this subject to me in person recently, and all three are religious (as in they actually go to church, not just that they believe in a god). I don’t really pay much attention to my parents’ view, because they’re old and stuck in their ignorant ways, and me and my sister have been ignoring their various prejudices for 20-odd years. But the third person is a young guy, in his early 20s, who made a comment like “I hear they’re making gay marriage legal” in a tone which made it quite clear that he didn’t think it was a positive move. If I was to ask every person I know what they think about this, the vast majority wouldn’t really care either way, but I know exactly which ones would, and they’re all religious.
(Although I should clarify that this doesn’t mean every religious person I know would be against it – partly because I’m just not sure how a few of them would feel about it).
I think this issue highlights perfectly why religion has no place in a modern, progressive society. Christianity, Islam, Judaism – they’re all rooted in books which were written in another time. We don’t need to get our moral codes from a book, because we have laws. We know god didn’t create man, because we know about evolution, and the bible makes no mention of god creating dinosaurs before humans. Why books which are so out of date with modern knowledge and thinking should still provide the basis for teaching anything to people is completely beyond me.
It’s clear that there is a problem in religious circles when it comes to tolerance of other people and their lifestyles, and this is something that the various religious bodies need to address. It’s not just high profile Catholic leaders preaching borderline homophobia in regards to equal marriage, nor the schisms created in the Kirk when it comes to issues like gay ministers. It’s the fact that young people are still being brought up to believe that homosexuality is “wrong”. Those of us who spurn religion have our sense of morality formed by current thinking in society, meaning as society progresses, so too do our views. But people who allow themselves to be indoctrinated by someone claiming to be delivering messages from god does not have such a luxury, as their morality is clearly dependant on that of the preacher. That’s not so bad when that preacher is forward thinking (like you clearly are), but it’s a massive problem when the preacher is someone like O’Brien or Tartaglia.
If I, an ordinary person, stood in the street claiming to be delivering the word of god and preaching that homosexual marriage is wrong, I would be derided as a nutter, and arrested for preaching hatred (or anti-social behaviour at least). Since we seemingly can’t do the same to catholic priests etc because of religious “freedom” (I’ve never understood how indoctrination can be called freedom), then the onus is on religious bodies to bring themselves up to date with modern thinking.
Of course, it would be far easier if we just treated all religions the way we treat less popular religious cults like Scientology, and replaced them with an idea that people should just be good because it’s nice to be good, rather than because you’ll go to hell otherwise, and allowed people to live their lives how they want, free of people judging them by outdated morals…
#32 by Oliver Milne on July 26, 2012 - 11:50 am
Hi,
The intention was not to present all religious people or even all ministers or religious men and women as intolerant. Rather the point was the exact opposite, that men and women of faith are being misrepresented by their religious bureaucracies and now presents an opportunity for those people to speak out against the indecent message being offered as indicative of their faith.
Oliver
#33 by Indy on July 26, 2012 - 12:23 am
I am actually quite worried about this. The RC Church in particular are in danger of doing not only themselves but social cohesion very serious damage. Tartaglia’s comments were awful but they were made off the cuff, whereas Peter Kearney’s comments tonight were considered. He actually meant to say what he said, he thought about it, he said it all deliberately. It’s incredible really.
I can’t understand the thinking behind this. The SG has done everything they can to make this as consensual as possible. OK it can’t be consensual, of course not because people disagree on a point of principle, but the SNP has tried as far as they can to give something to everybody, they have committed to protecting religious freedom and expression and so on. And the RC Church is just throwing it back in their faces.
It doesn’t make any sense because they – the Church hierarchy I mean – MUST know that they do not speak for every Catholic in Scotland. Catholics will have varying views on this of course but there is no evidence that most Catholics are even against same sex marriage. Never mind supporting the really horrible tactics being used here.
The problem here is that all Catholics could be associated with these horrible comments which would be unfair. David Cairns after all was a Catholic. He never stopped being a Catholic which makes the attitude of the Church hierarchy all the more extraordinary and twisted.
#34 by Alec on July 26, 2012 - 1:27 am
Indy, I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. After your desperate attempts last week to excuse or deny the Scottish Government’s cravenness over yet another delay, now that everything the other contributors to that thread warned about is coming to pass, the best thing for you to do is show some humility.
Here’s a newsflash for you, everything your Party did to curry favour with various “communities” around Scotland was pointless – or, if it did have an effect, was more likely to have the caused damage to “social cohesion” (Tm.) which you now are fretting about.
Youse thought youse were honouring the people, but all youse have done is legitimatize the sense self-entitlement of a bunch of (mostly) middle-class, middle-aged men and give them the reins of control over real people.
Not for the first time, the rights and interests of “people” have played second fiddle to the love of a nebulous concept called “the people”.
That’s because you don’t understand communalism, and therefore shouldn’t have played around with it ‘cos it’s guaranteed to end-up with people who do understand – and are able to play it much better than yow – coming along and pulling the rug out from under you.
You’re a gift which keeps on giving! The point of any elected Government is to formulate and pass coherent legislation, not to engage in a never-ending exchange of ideas which comes across more as an undergraduate debating society than grown-up governance.
This is an especial danger when youse have deliberately encouraged competing and other mutually exclusive bloc votes. This has been clear for YEARS.
~alec
#35 by Indy on July 26, 2012 - 6:58 pm
Lordy you are amazing.
It must be really tough for you that the SNP is delivering this exactly as they said they would and within the exact timescale that they set out.
Was it only a week ago that you and others were all outraged about the SNP backing off on gay marriage?
I rarely get into personality debates in these things but in this case I am going to have to say I Told You So.
#36 by Alec on July 27, 2012 - 10:26 am
Nope, Indy. If you’d reacquaint yourself with this thread, you’ll see me at least being quite willing to give credit where it was shown to be due. What I and others were noting was yet another delay, with the shift from Salmond’s self-certain populism to circumspection: this time with the patently unnecessary concern that Westminster equality legislation needed to be adjusted.
There is absolutely nothing to stop Holyrood altering the Marriage Act to allow any of three permutations of couples to get married in an compliant religious establishment.
You floated a scenario that there’re agitators who seek-out disapproving establishments, and promptly sue them when they refused in ways divorcees don’t sue disapproving establishments.
Despite offering a caveat that you might be slipping into mad paranoid territory, your apparent self-awareness was not sincere. You were, and in doing so were repeating the trope that there is a ‘homosexualist’ plot to make heterosexuals subservient.
You also lamented that every was engaged in really unkind criticism of the SNP, which they wouldn’t do if they knew how nice the SNP was.
Your Party – like any other Party – is not entitled to respect and uncritical praise. If it wants either or both, it should take-up religious orders… and then start pleading special favours and exemptions from the Scottish Government.
I and others suggested that, after getting themselves tied in knots courting various different and competing bloc votes (or, more accurately, the self-appointed gatekeepers – middle-aged, middle-class men mostly – of those ‘communities’), the Scottish Government was running scared in an effort to keep them sweet.
And, as we’ve seen with Tartaglia and O’Brien’s nasty bigoted comments, that’s failed. Bohica, there’s more to come.
~alec
#37 by Allan on July 26, 2012 - 7:39 pm
Indy.
The problem with the RC leadership is that they have seen the radicalisation process go on with Islam and Evangelical Christianity and thought “why not us?”, and have been on a course of hardline catholisism since then. The Pope himself pinpointed non believers as “the enemy” when he visited Scotland two years ago.
The problem is (and this is what I alluded to on The Burd’s post yesterday) how do you critisise in a constructive manner without being tarred with the biggot brush?
#38 by Indy on July 27, 2012 - 8:51 am
Yes I realise that. It’s a deliberate strategy at the top.
And I guess this is what the article we are commenting on is about, it needs the rank and file members of the Church to speak out.
#39 by Shuna on July 26, 2012 - 2:31 pm
Perhaps Doug you could seek out some progressive Christians and have discussions with them/us before tarring us all the same. Because in your own way you are being prejudiced.
I am not the kind of Christian/religious person you describe. And there are plenty more like me. You will never hear me teach homosexuality is wrong, I would never teach that, never. Because I don’t believe that. I take the Bible seriously but have studied it enough to understand the cultural and historical context of it and my approach is to understand this and acknowledge that time has moved on and we know more about what it means to be human in all it’s glorious beauty and diversity. And therefor whilst is still contains many many truths that still hold strong today there are text that when taken out of context are abused!
Anyway I am sure I won’t persuade you but at least respect my view as I respect yours.
#40 by Doug Daniel on July 26, 2012 - 5:02 pm
Well, I realise that turned into a bit of a big rant, but I did start off by saying it was true that not every religious person is against same sex marriage, and I also said further down “That’s not so bad when that preacher is forward thinking (like you clearly are), but it’s a massive problem when the preacher is someone like O’Brien or Tartaglia.” So I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of being the type of religious person I was describing, as you’re clearly one of the “good eggs” that are trying to drag the Kirk into the 21st century. So I’m not trying to tar you all with the same brush, although I can see why it may have come across like that since I went off on one a little bit…
However, the fact remains that organised religions seem to have a problem getting to grips with modern ways of thinking. Probably not helped by being led, in the main, by old men who formed their views of the world when homosexuality was still considered a bad thing (maybe even when it was still illegal). People tend to get more reactionary as they age, so it hardly helps matters when, for example, an 80 year old man is made head of an entire church.
I think matters might be helped if religious tomes were updated to match modern knowledge and thinking, particularly removing nonsense like creationism. But then, that would sort of ruin the idea that they’re the words handed down from gods, and that the words of those gods are infallible…
#41 by Shuna on July 26, 2012 - 8:26 pm
Thank you Doug for that. I do my best to drag the church forward and sometimes I manage and others I don’t lol
And I largely agree with the middle paragraph of your last post.
I will keep on going and maybe in my lifetime progress will happen. But as I said to my daughter you can only change something if you engage with it. Disengage and my view means nothing.
#42 by Cameron on July 26, 2012 - 8:36 pm
Gay marriage will improve equality in the same way that boardroom quotas for women would. That’s to say, it won’t. It’s shallow but easy legislation. Anyway this seems pretty relevant http://www.subcity.org/shows/dialectics/7ee69/.
Quite frankly though more concern and action should be given to the figures for mental illness in the lgbt (especially b/t) and suicide rates than for the terminology of what the officially recognised union of two partners is but of course that’s more difficult, especially when people get so incredibly defensive.
#43 by Iain Menzies on July 26, 2012 - 10:55 pm
I wish i was surprised, but im really not.
The level of intolerance on these comments sometimes is just amazing. Im sure many of you will disagree but callign someone a bigot, prejudiced, or a homophobe because they disagree with a policy is a form of bigotry.
I, personally, do not support the introduction of ‘gay marriage’.
I didnt support the introduction of civil partnerships.
For almost exactly 4 years now i have been in a monogamous same sex relationship.
Many of you will probably say that means im gay.
I dont care, its never a term ive used.
Every one of you that has read what i have posted above and assumed i am a homophobic bigot should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of they gay people you know may support these policies, but to assume that because someone has sex with a person of the same sex that they must hold a certain view is no different than the KKK assuming that black people aren’t as smart as white people just because they are black.
Some of you may be offended by the comparison to the KKK. I dont care.