Mulherin's 'fornication' statements described as primitive

Mickeroo

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Nobody is saying Christianity has the monopoly on values in Ireland. Certainly Mulherin didn't. She voiced an alternative opinion on the root cause of why 4000+ women (75% of which as under 30) go to the UK for an abortion. What is wrong with saying that love and sex should be part of a committed relationship in which children are conceived? If you ask any woman who has had an abortion, do they regret have sex resulting in conception you would be interested in know that many say they would have done things differently.

Its not about making people holy Christians... Its voicing an alternate opinion to that which goes around. Your actions have consequences... Sex has a deeper meaning than just one night stands.


Archaic...?? I see many people quote for archaic practices to suit themselves.. Norris would quote archaic Greek practices of men have sex with boys to suit his views on sexuality and the Irish median indulges his views.. Nobody calls what he says archaic.

Many people have lived this lives being in love with their soul mate, having children together and raising a family.. Just because Christian values say sex within marriage is right,, does not mean that if you are not a believer or not a Christian that Christian values and morals are wrong.. Because what society offers today as the alternate does not seem to be working.
Ireland may be less religious today.. But we have an all time high Suicide rate... Higher health issues related to Drugs/Alcohol than ever. I great secular society with its secular values is doing a great job..

The only value needed for a society to be secular is that no belief system is given precedence over another.

I get what you're saying, I mean technically she's right that sex outside of a marriage results in some abortions, but it's the way she referred to it as "fornication" as if it's something sinful or depraved, that is an archaic view in our society and it is a view that would not be shared by the majority of people, catholic and non-catholic alike, in this day and age. Its not an archaic view to think same sex relationships are ok (they are ok), apologies if thats not what you were getting at when you mentioned Norris.

Lets not forget contraception also goes against christian values, not exactly condusive to preventing unplanned pregnancy. The truth is a lot of these so called values are all very good and well but they don't really apply to modern society anymore.

Yes we have a high suicide rate and substance abuse rate and that is something that needs to be worked on, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with Mulherins out of date views.

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yes we have a high suicide rate and substance abuse rate and that is something that needs to be worked on, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with Mulherins out of date views.

Out of date views? Interesting. How are they out of date? I hadn't realised that ones worldview had a 'shelf-life.'

SD

mikom

qrrgprgua wrote: »

But we have an all time high reported Suicide rate... reported Higher health issues related to Drugs/Alcohol than ever. I great secular society with its secular values is doing a great job..

They were buried years ago.......... that's the difference.

Shur suicide was still illegal when the Catholic church was in full flow.

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

Out of date views? Interesting. How are they out of date? I hadn't realised that ones worldview had a 'shelf-life.'

SD

If my world view was that women should stay at home, raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon and not vote do you think it would be valid in this day and age?

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

If my world view was that women should stay at home, raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon and not vote do you think it would be valid in this day and age?

If that is your outlook, that's your outlook. Validity doesn't come into it. Just because many people would disagree with you does not take away from it's validity for you.

SD

mikom

StudentDad wrote: »

If that is your outlook, that's your outlook. Validity doesn't come into it. Just because many people would disagree with you does not take away from it's validity for you.

SD

Now put yourself in a position of government and spout about your "outlook" in the dail, in newspapers, and on the "Saturday night show"...........

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

If that is your outlook, that's your outlook. Validity doesn't come into it. Just because many people would disagree with you does not take away from it's validity for you.

SD

Thats nice, unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

If my world view was that women should stay at home, raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon and not vote do you think it would be valid in this day and age?

It would be valid for you Just because a majority think something is correct or incorrect does not make it valid or invalid. It is entirerly subjective. If everyone started to believe the world was flat in the morning, would that be valid in todays day and age?

SD

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats nice, unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.

Well if you are going to be a sheep I suppose you have to justify it somehow

SD

StudentDad

mikom wrote: »

Now put yourself in a position of government and spout about your "outlook" in the dail, in newspapers, and on the "Saturday night show"...........

If your stance is important to you, if that is what you believe, why would you care what other people thought? It has nothing to do with anyone else. You views are your views. They may be insane. Society may think they are outdated, but, they are still your views. You are either comfortable in what you believe and who you are, or you're not

SD

HarryPotter41

Mickeroo wrote: »

If my world view was that women should stay at home, raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon and not vote do you think it would be valid in this day and age?

Would have saved us from Michelle Mulherin in the Dail :-)

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

Well if you are going to be a sheep I suppose you have to justify it somehow

SD

Yes yes, very good, fight the power and all that. If accepting reality is sheep like behaviour then I am cool with that.

StudentDad wrote: »

If your stance is important to you, if that is what you believe, why would you care what other people thought? It has nothing to do with anyone else. You views are your views. They may be insane. Society may think they are outdated, but, they are still your views. You are either comfortable in what you believe and who you are, or you're not

SD

I take it you had no problem with Hitler being comfortable with what he believed in either. You're damn right this thread just got godwinned :pac:

What you said is all very good and well if you do it in the privacy of your own home but a public figure forfeits a lot of their rights to ignore what other people think of them, especially a democratically elected public figure.

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

It would be valid for you Just because a majority think something is correct or incorrect does not make it valid or invalid. It is entirerly subjective. If everyone started to believe the world was flat in the morning, would that be valid in todays day and age?

SD

No it would not, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make?!

And there's a difference between something being socially acceptable and scientifically verifiable(like the roundness of the earth), if the majority of society beleived the world was flat then it would be socially acceptable regardless of whether its a fact or not. In that respect its subjective, but again that just proves my point, Mulherin's views are out of wack with the majority of society, which is why there was so much controversy over them.

oscarBravo

It's pretty simple, really: any public representative is free to express whatever views they hold; and the electorate is free to judge them on the basis of those views. If enough voters believe that Michelle represents their point of view, she will be re-elected. If enough voters believe her views to be at odds with theirs, she won't.

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yes yes, very good, fight the power and all that. If accepting reality is sheep like behaviour then I am cool with that.



I take it you had no problem with Hitler being comfortable with what he believed in either. You're damn right this thread just got godwinned :pac:

What you said is all very good and well if you do it in the privacy of your own home but a public figure forfeits a lot of their rights to ignore what other people think of them, especially a democratically elected public figure.

I think Hitler was a fascist, murdering bastard. However, what he thought was his business and people in Germany foolishly put him in a position of power. At the end of the day the German people chose Hitler. Democracy isn't always the best form of governance.

I disagree that public figures lose their rights to ignore what other people think. They may choose to do so at their own peril. In that, if they piss of their power-base they may or will lose their support and ultimately their job. However, at the end of the day if is up to the politician to decide what is or is not important enough - their job or the principle they believe in.

SD

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

No it would not, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make?!

And there's a difference between something being socially acceptable and scientifically verifiable(like the roundness of the earth), if the majority of society beleived the world was flat then it would be socially acceptable regardless of whether its a fact or not. In that respect its subjective, but again that just proves my point, Mulherin's views are out of wack with the majority of society, which is why there was so much controversy over them.

I don't think her views are out of whack with the rest of society. I think society has become so used to people dressing up what they say in politically correct nonsense that they are 'offended' by someone standing up and saying what they think. Michelle is perfectly entitled to her views. She is also perfectly entitled to express them. People may or may not agree with her views. That is for those people to decide. It does not in any way invalidate her views. She feels that fornication or whatever label she chooses to put on it is not correct behaviour, for whatever reason. If the person hearing this message was totally comfortable in their own behaviour they wouldn't give a tuppeny damn what Michelle thought. At the end of the day, she has her views and is perfectly entitled to them. Just because someone doesn't like what she has to say does not mean that what she has to say is invalid.

SD

oscarBravo

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't think her views are out of whack with the rest of society.

[...]

She feels that fornication or whatever label she chooses to put on it is not correct behaviour, for whatever reason.

Believing that sex should only happen within the confines of a church-sanctified marriage is pretty much out of whack with society, I'm afraid.

StudentDad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Believing that sex should only happen within the confines of a church-sanctified marriage is pretty much out of whack with society, I'm afraid.

So what? As I said, she isn't afraid to express her views. Just because alot of people think differently to her does not in any way invalidate her view. The fact that so many people are 'offended' by her views is frankly hillarious.

SD

oscarBravo

StudentDad wrote: »

So what?

You said her views were not out of whack with the majority of society. I pointed out that they are. You appear to have conceded the point. That's all.

As I said, she isn't afraid to express her views. Just because alot of people think differently to her does not in any way invalidate her view. The fact that so many people are 'offended' by her views is frankly hillarious.

She has the right to have and to express her views. Others have a right to have and express views on her views. People will take her expressed views into account when deciding whether or not to vote for her.

There's really nothing complicated about any of this, but it's disingenuous to pretend that her views as she has expressed them are in any way mainstream.

StudentDad

oscarBravo wrote: »

You said her views were not out of whack with the majority of society. I pointed out that they are. You appear to have conceded the point. That's all. She has the right to have and to express her views. Others have a right to have and express views on her views. People will take her expressed views into account when deciding whether or not to vote for her.

There's really nothing complicated about any of this, but it's disingenuous to pretend that her views as she has expressed them are in any way mainstream.

You seem to have missed what I'm trying to say. Whether or not her views are 'out of whack' or not is irrelevant. I don't think they are. I think there is a silent majority of people who would agree with her on matters of sexual behaviour. This is still an extremely conservative country.

The point I'm trying to make is that 'society' has become so used to listening to filtered language devoid of meaning that when someone actually stands up and says, 'hang on, I think differently.' The sheep have a problem with it. It forces society to re-evaluate. Too many people don't like to do that. That requires an evaluation of their own stance. It is far easier to allow 'mainstream' mores to influence an individuals behaviour. If people actually thought for themselves we may have a society of individuals and not sheep. That would be fun!

SD

oscarBravo

StudentDad wrote: »

I think there is a silent majority of people who would agree with her on matters of sexual behaviour.

If you genuinely believe that the majority of people in this country consider it morally wrong to have sex other than with a person to whom they have been married in a church, fair enough. Maybe it's even true, although I doubt it. I don't even know that many older people who genuinely believe this any more.

It's a view anyone is entitled to have, but it's equally a view that I have every right to consider backwards and bigoted.

StudentDad

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that the majority of people in this country consider it morally wrong to have sex other than with a person to whom they have been married in a church, fair enough. Maybe it's even true, although I doubt it. I don't even know that many older people who genuinely believe this any more.

It's a view anyone is entitled to have, but it's equally a view that I have every right to consider backwards and bigoted.

I'm not talking about what I feel or don't feel. The point I'm trying to get across is that, irrespective of what you think about Michelles point of view. She is perfectly entitled to hold it and express it. Nobody is trying to deny 'you' your feelings on the matter. If you choose to go out and shag half the country that's your business. The flip side of that is that there are people who do not agree with that and they are perfectly entitled to that stance. Like I said earlier, if you are happy with your world view, it would not matter one jot to you if anyone out there held an opposing view.

SD

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

I'm not talking about what I feel or don't feel. The point I'm trying to get across is that, irrespective of what you think about Michelles point of view. She is perfectly entitled to hold it and express it. Nobody is trying to deny 'you' your feelings on the matter. If you choose to go out and shag half the country that's your business. The flip side of that is that there are people who do not agree with that and they are perfectly entitled to that stance. Like I said earlier, if you are happy with your world view, it would not matter one jot to you if anyone out there held an opposing view.

SD

I agree she is entitled to her views and I entitled to mine and you entitled to yours, but by virtue of the fact that she is a politician and expressed her views in the Dáil, that makes her views open to scrutiny from the public and media alike. Just like me and you posting our views up here makes us open to scrutiny from the posters of boards.ie I guess

The view Michelle M. expressed is a view which you would expect of a devout catholic in fairness and I am perfectly fine with people being devout catholics (though I seriously doubt they are a majority anymore) but the fact of the matter is Michelle is a publically elected official, who did not allude to any of these views in her election campaign afaik, the Dáil is not for her to soapbox about her own beliefs its for her to represent the views of her constituents, which going by a lot of reports she certainly did not. Nobody is arguing against her right to hold her beliefs.

And saying fornication is not wrong does not mean anyones advocating going out and shagging "half the country", you could be in a loving relationship with someone for your whole life and still be considered to be fornicating with them. Thats the main reason her views are so dated.

mikom

StudentDad wrote: »

The point I'm trying to get across is that, irrespective of what you think about Michelles point of view. She is perfectly entitled to hold it and express it.

Like I said earlier, if you are happy with your world view, it would not matter one jot to you if anyone out there held an opposing view.

Go into the Christianity section of boards here ..... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333

Now start a thread entitled..... "I believe all Christians are peados and puffs"
See if the Mod and the posters there hold an opposing view.
See how far a world view like that will get you there.
Of course it won't matter "one jot" to you that you will be banned as a troll even though it was only an "opposing view" you held.

dlofnep

StudentDad wrote: »

You seem to have missed what I'm trying to say. Whether or not her views are 'out of whack' or not is irrelevant. I don't think they are. I think there is a silent majority of people who would agree with her on matters of sexual behaviour. This is still an extremely conservative country.

No, it simply isn't. Ireland is a far cry from Conservative Catholic Ireland of the 1940's. Ireland is a liberal country, with a liberal population. There is no silent majority that opposes sex before marriage. I doubt even 5% of the population opposes sex before marriage.

Mulherin is entitled to express her views - I'm all for freedom of speech. But we are entitled to criticise those said views. Once again, such is the nature of freedom of speech and expression.

StudentDad

Mickeroo wrote: »

... The view Michelle M. expressed is a view which you would expect of a devout catholic in fairness and I am perfectly fine with people being devout catholics (though I seriously doubt they are a majority anymore) but the fact of the matter is Michelle is a publically elected official, who did not allude to any of these views in her election campaign afaik, the Dáil is not for her to soapbox about her own beliefs its for her to represent the views of her constituents, which going by a lot of reports she certainly did not. Nobody is arguing against her right to hold her beliefs ...

I have to disagree with you. Michelle put herself forward for election. She was elected and she represents her constituents as far as I know to the best of her ability. She isn't an automaton, she is an individual who is perfectly entitled to her beliefs. You may or may not agree with what she has to say on a given topic. You may or may not have voted for her if you are one of her constituents. At the end of the day she is entitled to her opinion and she may or may not be elected at the next election. She may think your ideas are off the wall. Who knows? The point is, it is a democracy and she is entitled to her point of view. If you feel offended by her opinion, well sorry that's life.

SD

StudentDad

mikom wrote: »

Go into the Christianity section of boards here ..... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333

Now start a thread entitled..... "I believe all Christians are peados and puffs"
See if the Mod and the posters there hold an opposing view.
See how far a world view like that will get you there.
Of course it won't matter "one jot" to you that you will be banned as a troll even though it was only an "opposing view" you held.

There is a huge difference between being a 'troll' and expressing your opinion. This tendency towards 'consensus' is frankly irritating. It is a herd mentality. People are entitled to their beliefs and whether you or anybody else disagrees with them is irrelevant.

SD

StudentDad

dlofnep wrote: »

... Mulherin is entitled to express her views - I'm all for freedom of speech. But we are entitled to criticise those said views. Once again, such is the nature of freedom of speech and expression ...

I don't disagree.

SD

Mickeroo

StudentDad wrote: »

I have to disagree with you. Michelle put herself forward for election. She was elected and she represents her constituents as far as I know to the best of her ability. She isn't an automaton, she is an individual who is perfectly entitled to her beliefs. You may or may not agree with what she has to say on a given topic. You may or may not have voted for her if you are one of her constituents. At the end of the day she is entitled to her opinion and she may or may not be elected at the next election. She may think your ideas are off the wall. Who knows? The point is, it is a democracy and she is entitled to her point of view. If you feel offended by her opinion, well sorry that's life.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

There is a huge difference between being a 'troll' and expressing your opinion. This tendency towards 'consensus' is frankly irritating. It is a herd mentality. People are entitled to their beliefs and whether you or anybody else disagrees with them is irrelevant.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't disagree.

SD

Nobody is arguing against freedom of speech etc. We get that everyone's entitled to their opinions, but thats not the issue thats being discussed on this thread tbh.

finisklin

StudentDad wrote: »

I have to disagree with you. Michelle put herself forward for election. She was elected and she represents her constituents as far as I know to the best of her ability. She isn't an automaton, she is an individual who is perfectly entitled to her beliefs. You may or may not agree with what she has to say on a given topic. You may or may not have voted for her if you are one of her constituents. At the end of the day she is entitled to her opinion and she may or may not be elected at the next election. She may think your ideas are off the wall. Who knows? The point is, it is a democracy and she is entitled to her point of view. If you feel offended by her opinion, well sorry that's life.

SD

If you are saying that MM thought this all the way through and how it would build her political base both within FG and within her constituency (with the aim being to get re-elected and secure higher tenure within the party) then it has fallen well short of the mark. H=The problem is that it wasn't well thought through, reflected by her choice of language and critically her subsequent defence of her comments on several media outlets (including the Saturday Night Show) where Brennie had to bail her out and explain her own rationale to her was an own goal.

This is just another example of ill judged and poorly considered comments from a profound thinker, albeit slightly creative, legal eagle that is completely out of touch with her constituents. It puts into the shade her previous comments on Libya, the Gallagher brothers of Oasis fame being made freemen of Mayo and shows her for what she is.

What was disappointing about the whole episode was the way some media outlets personalised it and opened up her personal life to scrutiny. I don't think she deserved that. However, her persistence in her stance brought the spot light into her personal circumstances.