Why is Ireland so Pro-Obama?

Hoof Hearted

Having spent half my life in Ireland and half my life in the US, (the last 20 years in the US), I would say that if I still lived in Ireland today, I would probably be Pro-Obama, as well, and I would say for the first 7 or 8 year I was in the US, I was pro-Democrat as well. So what changed, well when I first went to the US, I wanted to prove how "progressive" I was and how I was so different from the old Irish stereotype, of being traditional, pro-family values, anti-divorce, pro-Catholic, poor, even virtuous, etc., I wanted to show America, how us young Irish are so hip, and with it, probably to the extent that I was embarrassed that in Ireland in 1993, divorce was still not allowed, sex outside of marriage was frowned upon, even abortion was not permitted. My shame was that we (Irish) were behind the ball of other more "progressive" countries.

So where am I going with this? Well first, as I have come to learn through the years that what's described as "progressive", that is, legal divorce, contraceptives, abortion, sex before marriage, one or two child only families, or no families, pleasure before virtue, etc., is actually becoming the seed of most of the problems in many of our societies today. Not just problems in our personal and family life, but the macro-economic and social problems as well. In America this line of "progressive" thinking is what got President Obama re-elected.

Do the Irish know that President Obama and most of the Democratic Party support abortion on demand? Do the Irish know that when Mr. Obama was a senator in Illinois voted for partial-birth abortion? Do the Irish know that Mr. Obama is putting in place policies with the new health care mandate (HHS mandate), that will essentially force thousands of Catholic and other Christian institutions out of business in the US (25% of healthcare in the US are Catholic institutions), simply because following the requirements of their religion will be deemed contrary to the government's HHS mandate. Example, a Catholic hospital not performing an abortion, will be seen just as serious as not paying its taxes and the full rigors of US law, which include confiscation of property, garnishing of wages, will be put upon them. As I don't live in Ireland but have family there, I know most of them don't realize this.

Is it the nice smile, the great vocal delivery, the Irish ancestery, being black, that won the Irish over?

Anyway I was not and am not fully with the Republican side in America either, but what I am, is an informed voter. If a candidate for President, Democrat or Republic, white or black, in a few years from now stood for pro-family values, pro-life, pro-freedom of religion, pro-immigrants, and pro-virtue, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Why do I get so much push back from the Irish about wanting such a candidate? Why is when so many policies happen to line up with the teachings of the world's religions, there is a back lash? Is it because some of the participants in those religions have done terrible deeds, so therefore the virtues that those religions preach are also wrong, or is it generally, I want my pleasure and cake now, and whatever politician gives it to me, will get my vote, and I don't want to addle my brain with what will happen 10, 30, or 60 years down the road?

Witcher

You seem to think Ireland is massively anti abortion and pro Catholic Church. Things have changed in the 20 years you've been gone.

Denerick

Most sane people east of the Atlantic see American conservatism as absolutely absurd, extreme, impractical, and hypocritical. Every center right party in Europe is to the left of the US democrats. The political center is radically different across the ocean. Its not just Ireland, its the rest of the world. Every nation in the world seems to see US conservatism for what it is, except Americans obviously.

Red Crow

Ireland isn't really pro-Obama. Everybody is still caught up in the "Yes we can" campaign and that ball is still rolling today.

Romney was a bit too "out there" for me this year. I would of voted for somebody like Ron Paul although he carries some weird supporters too.

Corkfeen

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

So where am I going with this? Well first, as I have come to learn through the years that what's described as "progressive", that is, legal divorce, contraceptives, abortion, sex before marriage, one or two child only families, or no families, pleasure before virtue, etc., is actually becoming the seed of most of the problems in many of our societies today. Not just problems in our personal and family life, but the macro-economic and social problems as well. In America this line of "progressive" thinking is what got President Obama re-elected.

I and many other Irish people are in favour of all of the things that you object to. I'm not seeing how making divorce illegal would be a positive change, in fact it would be extremely negative forcing people to remain in marriages that they would like to exit. There's no reason why a person should be expected to have a family or exceed a certain amount. I understand that many have objections to abortions but you'd have trouble finding anyone that had a problem with contraceptives.

The Republican party come across as regressive between weird rape comments and pandering to the ultra religious and racists groups, they are damaging their demographic and creating a more hostile international view of them.While Ireland has always been traditionally democrat leaning, the Republican party have become a ridiculously conservative party, this applies particularly to their social policies that seem like they were designed for a different world. Ireland has changed significantly in the past twenty years and have pretty much shed our Catholic baggage. For myself, I'm in favour of candidates that don't feel the need to force their religious beliefs upon the populous and don't feel the need to push socially conservative stances that are of no benefit to society....

Undoubtedly, there are Republicans that don't swing so far to the right but at this point in time, the party don't seem to view them to be of presidential material.

corkgsxr

Ask the older generation, quite racist.


I'd be pro Obama cos he's not a idiot. Romney is. And more of a liar that most politicians

BobbyPropane

Its more the fact that it goes back to JFK. Not to mention the fact that republicans are in general a danger to the world. During the election I saw a woman no more than 30 stating she was voting for Romney because Obama was going to ban the use of automatic rifles. She then stated she had 2 AR 15s in the household.I mean seriously.

I share the views of Michael Moore ,IMO more people should start reading his books as they tell the truth behind then republicans and democrats of which the former is the greater of the two evils. Ironically his parents were Irish too.


Anyway that is pretty much why I am pro Obama not to say he is the ideal president of course.

iPringle

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Having spent half my life in Ireland and half my life in the US, (the last 20 years in the US), I would say that if I still lived in Ireland today, I would probably be Pro-Obama, as well, and I would say for the first 7 or 8 year I was in the US, I was pro-Democrat as well. So what changed, well when I first went to the US, I wanted to prove how "progressive" I was and how I was so different from the old Irish stereotype, of being traditional, pro-family values, anti-divorce, pro-Catholic, poor, even virtuous, etc., I wanted to show America, how us young Irish are so hip, and with it, probably to the extent that I was embarrassed that in Ireland in 1993, divorce was still not allowed, sex outside of marriage was frowned upon, even abortion was not permitted. My shame was that we (Irish) were behind the ball of other more "progressive" countries.

So where am I going with this? Well first, as I have come to learn through the years that what's described as "progressive", that is, legal divorce, contraceptives, abortion, sex before marriage, one or two child only families, or no families, pleasure before virtue, etc., is actually becoming the seed of most of the problems in many of our societies today. Not just problems in our personal and family life, but the macro-economic and social problems as well. In America this line of "progressive" thinking is what got President Obama re-elected.

Do the Irish know that President Obama and most of the Democratic Party support abortion on demand? Do the Irish know that when Mr. Obama was a senator in Illinois voted for partial-birth abortion? Do the Irish know that Mr. Obama is putting in place policies with the new health care mandate (HHS mandate), that will essentially force thousands of Catholic and other Christian institutions out of business in the US (25% of healthcare in the US are Catholic institutions), simply because following the requirements of their religion will be deemed contrary to the government's HHS mandate. Example, a Catholic hospital not performing an abortion, will be seen just as serious as not paying its taxes and the full rigors of US law, which include confiscation of property, garnishing of wages, will be put upon them. As I don't live in Ireland but have family there, I know most of them don't realize this.

Is it the nice smile, the great vocal delivery, the Irish ancestery, being black, that won the Irish over?

Anyway I was not and am not fully with the Republican side in America either, but what I am, is an informed voter. If a candidate for President, Democrat or Republic, white or black, in a few years from now stood for pro-family values, pro-life, pro-freedom of religion, pro-immigrants, and pro-virtue, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat. Why do I get so much push back from the Irish about wanting such a candidate? Why is when so many policies happen to line up with the teachings of the world's religions, there is a back lash? Is it because some of the participants in those religions have done terrible deeds, so therefore the virtues that those religions preach are also wrong, or is it generally, I want my pleasure and cake now, and whatever politician gives it to me, will get my vote, and I don't want to addle my brain with what will happen 10, 30, or 60 years down the road?

Irish people have a vastly different perspective of politics. Political and economic theory do not form a part of Irish political discourse in a similar fashion to the U.S. There is something of a consensus of opinion between the main political parties in Ireland (with the exception of Sinn Féin).

Ireland has never had a party who is economically liberal (with the possible exception of the PDs) and so a party that doesn't want state control over the economy is foreign to most Irish people. (Not that the Republican Party practise what they preach, but for the moment let's consider rhetoric rather than action).

Irish people cannot understand why the state shouldn't control education; why the state shouldn't heavily regulate private enterprise; why the state shouldn't support the poor by transferring money from the rich and middle class.

The Republican rhetoric is just very far removed from what we have experienced in Ireland (and even in Europe).

If Ireland had the history of the United States. If Ireland had the history of immigration and the experiment of the 1800's free market that the United States had, then it would most likely have people that would tend toward Republicans.

nagirrac

Just to dispell the most obvious crap in the OP, Obama did not vote for partial birth abortion, he voted against a state law twice that would ban it. In other words he voted to keep that decision between a doctor and a patient where it belongs. No matter how much the procedure may disturb people, doctors in any civilized society must be allowed to perform whatever procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. In the US, the mother's rights supercede the rights of a foetus under the constitution. The claim on the health care law is also crap, no medical facility is forced to perform abortions. The issue here was contraception and the requirement that all employers provide health care coverage that includes contraception. Anyone who thinks people should be denied access to contraception in this day and age is simply a nutter and does not even remotely understand separation of church and state.

I cant speak for the people in Ireland but one of the reasons the majority of people in America voted for Obama is they have no desire to go back to a society like Ireland was in the 1940s.

InTheTrees

Plenty of us have been in the US just as long as you (if you're actually telling the truth!) and havent devolved into right wing conservatives.

Which sounds pretty dubious to me anyway. Usually right wing trolls start off their posts with "Hey guys, I used to be just like you until..."

And indeed by paragraph two we get to the Real Post; a religious diatribe against abortion.

pfft.

:mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

InTheTrees wrote: »

Plenty of us have been in the US just as long as you (if you're actually telling the truth!) and havent devolved into right wing conservatives.

Which sounds pretty dubious to me anyway. Usually right wing trolls start off their posts with "Hey guys, I used to be just like you until..."

And indeed by paragraph two we get to the Real Post; a religious diatribe against abortion.

pfft.

:mad:

Cut out the accusations of trolling please, report any posts and the mods will look at them.

20Cent

Looking at the major issues facing the world today and how they could affect Ireland Obama is the obvious choice.
War with Iran: much less likely under Obama than Romney.
Global warming: Romney thinks its a joke, improvements in this area much more likely under Obama.
The out of control financial sector: Romney wants to deregulate them causing more Lehmans type disasters.
Obama is far from perfect a crushing dissapointment actually but he's still better for us than a republican.

Also Ireland tends to be more for the democratic party because they are more rational and less likely to cause massive damage to the world than the republicans. No need for psychoanalysis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cool Mo D

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You really can't say that the Irish people do support socially conservative policies though. None of the major parties willingly advance social issues ever, at any election, and the last major referendum won by social conservatives was nearly 30 years ago.

Socially conservative laws are only remaining by inertia, with the single exception of abortion, on which the electorate are almost evenly split.

Saying that the Irish electorate is more extreme than the average US red state is just laughably inaccurate - for example gay marriage and civil unions are barred by state law in 41 out of 50 US states, but civil unions passed here with barely a whimper. Official Ireland has many religious trappings, but they have been slipping for a long time, and there is zero sign of a reversal.

Have a look at this 2012 Texas Republican part manifesto, especially pages 6-8, and see that the only Irish party with a similar programme is the Christian Solidarity Party, which receives a rounding error of the vote - and realise that the party behind this document has a large majority of State and Congressional seats in one of the biggest states in the Union.

InTheTrees

US Right Wing Conservatives believe the role of government is to manage treaties, defense and tax collection to fund those endeavours. Thats all.

They believe in cutting ALL "safety nets". No healthcare, no pensions, no social security.

They dont even believe in public education. Or even emergency disaster services (FEMA is an old target of theirs).

They dont believe in any kind of assistance unless it is paid for.

No Irish government has ever come remotely close to matching their ideology.

Denerick

InTheTrees wrote: »

US Right Wing Conservatives believe the role of government is to manage treaties, defense and tax collection to fund those endeavours. Thats all.

Unless you're gay, an immigrant, a woman, or in anyway not a middle aged white person from the south or midwest. Then the government is all over your ass.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Irish parties have been fairly centrist for the most part.
I'd say the republican social conservatism is far more extreme than Ireland, they just can't implement what they want because of the constitution and the supreme court.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fr Tod Umptious

Great thread OP, thanks for starting it.

And great posts Permabear, articulating exactly the way i feel about this subject.

I started a thread a few months back asking the same questions, why do Irish love the Dems when our social policies and opinions seem much closer to that of the GOP ?

And aptly just last night on Newstalk Mark Coleman on his show had a great discussion about why the Irish media ignore anything controversial from US Dems and jump all over every utterance from the GOP
It should be on there web site at this stage , the discussion was about 1hr 30 mins into the show (around 11.30pm GMT)

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So even with so much in common with republicans (which i disagree with) Irish people would still vote for a democratic president.
If its not their social conservatism that puts us off what is it?

Funglegunk

20Cent wrote: »

So even with so much in common with republicans (which i disagree with) Irish people would still vote for a democratic president.
If its not their social conservatism that puts us off what is it?

Their relentless jingoism I'd say.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

So even with so much in common with republicans (which i disagree with) Irish people would still vote for a democratic president.
If its not their social conservatism that puts us off what is it?

Would we though ?

It's easy for us to sit here this side of the Atlantic and lecture to 'stupid' Yanks about what there country should be like, and who they should choose to run it.

But how would we vote if the questions were put to us, and other posters have mentioned we have a fairly dismal record in choosing our own leaders down the years

For example
Every time I mention that I do not believe a gay marriage referendum would pass in Ireland I get told that an option polls shows x % support it (where x > 50)

And to them I say that David Norris had anything between 40% and 20% in opinion polls for the Irish Presidential election in the months leading up to it

He ended up with 6.2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hoof Hearted

InTheTrees wrote: »

US Right Wing Conservatives believe the role of government is to manage treaties, defense and tax collection to fund those endeavours. Thats all.

They believe in cutting ALL "safety nets". No healthcare, no pensions, no social security.

They dont even believe in public education. Or even emergency disaster services (FEMA is an old target of theirs).

They dont believe in any kind of assistance unless it is paid for.

No Irish government has ever come remotely close to matching their ideology.

All assistance and programs are paid for out of everyone's pockets anyway, don't fall into the trap of the government pays for it, not me. Even if the rich pay more, it's really our pocket in comes from, because we buy the products or services that made the rich wealthy, and we end up paying more when the rich have to increase product price to compensate. "Liberal philisophy" supports the policy that assistance should be forced out of people's pockets through higher taxes, which significantly lessens the incentive for those receiving the continuous stream of assistance to move up the ladder. Should one give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Goverment programs are nearly always expand, and are very difficult to cut. When one says the government "provides", what they don't realize is that it's coming out of everyone's pockets (Someone else, not as thrifty as you, the government, is shopping with your money, who has a big incentive to spend more to keep voters happy, so as to get re-elected). It's a vicious cycle. Policies of growing government programs have in reality become, borrow now and pay later, except the pay later is turning into can't pay later....as in PIIGS....(what will be the next country added to this acronym?) As government policy reflects the society that elects it, people are often now having small families so that they can have a "better" life, however when everyone shares the ideology of small families or no children (often due to concraception, or the unthinkable decision to abort an unborn baby), these decisions will come back to haunt them and and future generations, through economic collapse, as there will be too few of working age supporting too many at retirement age. So those that have the philosophy of "I can do what I want as long it doesn't affect others", please think a little harder and more long term about the "affecting others" bit. Unfortunately, many of the Conservatives in America are anti-immigrant, but it is the immigrants that are preventing our demographic pyramid from being inverted, i.e. the worker to dependent ratio. Obama is pro-immigrant, which is one area I agree with him on.

Dare I say it, Jesus is right, our own sin and our selfishness affects everyone else in the end. Really I'm not trying to win an argument here, but I would like those that support a big-Government, liberal, secular philosophy hear another point of view and consider the long-term consequences of both approaches, taking each philosophy to its logical conclusion.

All I'm asking is for people to be open-minded and perform a thorough educated research of the long-term outcome, of Big Goverment policies (with its secular tending leanings) on the one hand, and non-Big Government (with its faith tending leanings) on the other, and to make an informed decision of what philosophy they should embrace, taking into account the future of their children and grand-children. Sadly most people don't do even basic research and verification and how they vote is based on perception and what they hear and see in the media.

I see some Liberal or pro-Big government supporters must have the following lines of reasoning, "force government to take my money now so that they will repay me when I retire, as I am not diciplined enough to do it myself", or "the government pays the benefits not me", who knows?

Hoof Hearted

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You see I disagree with the Republican and Irish, on some of these points, I see all people (immigrants and non-immigrants), born and pre-born as equal. I disagree with segments of Conservativism and Irish that are selfish to their own interests at the expense of others. I'm for the betterment of human dignity and justice, and freedom of religion, but while Obama may say this, he's policies clearly don't achieve this.

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Would we though ?

It's easy for us to sit here this side of the Atlantic and lecture to 'stupid' Yanks about what there country should be like, and who they should choose to run it.

But how would we vote if the questions were put to us, and other posters have mentioned we have a fairly dismal record in choosing our own leaders down the years

For example
Every time I mention that I do not believe a gay marriage referendum would pass in Ireland I get told that an option polls shows x % support it (where x > 50)

And to them I say that David Norris had anything between 40% and 20% in opinion polls for the Irish Presidential election in the months leading up to it

He ended up with 6.2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011

An openly gay candidate wouldn't even get to run in the US. We did elect and atheist something else that wouldn't happen in the US. Actually nobody really cares its not an issue. Civil partnership passed without so much as a peep from the public, Alan Shatter said today that FG are " “acutely aware” of the need to reform family law in Ireland.He said this needed to be done “to secure equal citizenship for lesbian and gay parents and the best interests of their children”. You wouldn't see that in the US.
Marco Rubio recently said the earth is 5,000 years old, imagine an Irish politician saying that they'd be laughed out of it.

Ireland is becoming more progressive, the US republicans are going backwards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hoof Hearted

corkgsxr wrote: »

Ask the older generation, quite racist.


I'd be pro Obama cos he's not a idiot. Romney is. And more of a liar that most politicians

The level of intellect in your post gives me a good insight into those that are pro-Obama.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was referring to president also both your examples are Democrats.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not really an example of being more socially liberal. Lots of reasons for that.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very tenuous link if its even there at all.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stay classy...............

Hoof Hearted

20Cent wrote: »

An openly gay candidate wouldn't even get to run in the US. We did elect and atheist something else that wouldn't happen in the US. Actually nobody really cares its not an issue. Civil partnership passed without so much as a peep from the public, Alan Sh¡tter said today that FG are " “acutely aware” of the need to reform family law in Ireland.He said this needed to be done “to secure equal citizenship for lesbian and gay parents and the best interests of their children”. You wouldn't see that in the US.
Marco Rubio recently said the earth is 5,000 years old, imagine an Irish politician saying that they'd be laughed out of it.

Ireland is becoming more progressive, the US republicans are going backwards.

You seem to take pride that Ireland is for so many things that are anti-virtue, anti-Catholic, pro-atheistic. What is the long term goal here? Where does this road eventually lead?

Seeing as you brought this up, a homosexual relationship is sin, and so is a pre-marital hetrosexual relationship, possible equal in gravity. So please have a good laugh at me if you like, for me mentioning the word "sin". So what's the next group to get their "rights". Here in the US, the NAMBLA (look it up), is where the LGBT cause was half a century ago. In 20 years time, will NAMBLA get their "rights" too? Would you be OK with that? I suggest that if there is an Obama equivalent in 20 years or so, that president will be courting their vote.

The trend as I see it, suggests also, that the Hedonism cause is going to play more and more of a role in the "Progressive" or liberal platform of left wing parties in many countries not just the US. How sad, how sad.

I think there will be tears of sadness and regret in our eyes when we have gone too far down the "Progressive" road and wish for the days of virtue, when marriage was held in high regard, when families said their daily prayers on their knees, when one didn't have nightmares about the baby they had aborted. When the 30 somethings of today turn 70 and they have no children or grand-children to love them back, will it be only then that they will realize a big mistake was made and that the wisdom of thousands of years of religion preached were right after all, and the "Progessive" government that promised them their pension is now bankrupt. Is this "Progress"? If "backwards" mean not going forward down this route, I'll take backwards any day. But let's not get into semantics, like the pro-abortion crowd using the word pro-choice,

I hope I am wrong, God Help us, I hope that I am wrong.

Suryavarman

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

You seem to take pride that Ireland is for so many things that are anti-virtue, anti-Catholic, pro-atheistic. What is the long term goal here? Where does this road eventually lead?

Seeing as you brought this up, a homosexual relationship is sin, and so is a pre-marital hetrosexual relationship, possible equal in gravity. So please have a good laugh at me if you like, for me mentioning the word "sin". So what's the next group to get their "rights". Here in the US, the NAMBLA (look it up), is where the LGBT cause was half a century ago. In 20 years time, will NAMBLA get their "rights" too? Would you be OK with that? I suggest that if there is an Obama equivalent in 20 years or so, that president will be courting their vote.

The trend as I see it, suggests also, that the Hedonism cause is going to play more and more of a role in the "Progressive" or liberal platform of left wing parties in many countries not just the US. How sad, how sad.

I think there will be tears of sadness and regret in our eyes when we have gone too far down the "Progressive" road and wish for the days of virtue, when marriage was held in high regard, when families said their daily prayers on their knees, when one didn't have nightmares about the baby they had aborted. When the 30 somethings of today turn 70 and they have no children or grand-children to love them back, will it be only then that they will realize a big mistake was made and that the wisdom of thousands of years of religion preached were right after all, and the "Progessive" government that promised them their pension is now bankrupt. Is this "Progress"? If "backwards" mean not going forward down this route, I'll take backwards any day. But let's not get into semantics, like the pro-abortion crowd using the word pro-choice,

I hope I am wrong, God Help us, I hope that I am wrong.

I fail to see what the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association has to do with the LGBT community.

Corkfeen

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

You seem to take pride that Ireland is for so many things that are anti-virtue, anti-Catholic, pro-atheistic. What is the long term goal here? Where does this road eventually lead?

Seeing as you brought this up, a homosexual relationship is sin, and so is a pre-marital hetrosexual relationship, possible equal in gravity. So please have a good laugh at me if you like, for me mentioning the word "sin". So what's the next group to get their "rights". Here in the US, the NAMBLA (look it up), is where the LGBT cause was half a century ago. In 20 years time, will NAMBLA get their "rights" too? Would you be OK with that? I suggest that if there is an Obama equivalent in 20 years or so, that president will be courting their vote.

The trend as I see it, suggests also, that the Hedonism cause is going to play more and more of a role in the "Progressive" or liberal platform of left wing parties in many countries not just the US. How sad, how sad.

A child can't consent so that's why abusing a minor will never be socially acceptable. A homosexual couple getting married are perfectly capable of consenting so there's no contrast.... Let me direct you to the slippery slope fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy

Hoof Hearted

Never say never. There was a time when abortion, pre-marital sex, & homosexual relations would "never" be socially acceptable.

So if there wasn't a consent law this would be fine?

Who's is to say a simple change in the consent law can't remedy that stumbling block.
If the laws on murder can be twisted to allow abortion on demand, a change such as this will be easy in comparison, I'm sorry to say.

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't win you any points. Here's an example of why the Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't always apply.
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

An openly gay candidate wouldn't even get to run in the US. We did elect and atheist something else that wouldn't happen in the US. Actually nobody really cares its not an issue. Civil partnership passed without so much as a peep from the public, Alan Shatter said today that FG are " “acutely aware” of the need to reform family law in Ireland.He said this needed to be done “to secure equal citizenship for lesbian and gay parents and the best interests of their children”. You wouldn't see that in the US.
Marco Rubio recently said the earth is 5,000 years old, imagine an Irish politician saying that they'd be laughed out of it.

Ireland is becoming more progressive, the US republicans are going backwards.

You have missed the point about Norris, deliberately I presume.

The point not whether he would be running for election in the US
The point is that support for a gay man in the presidential election was strong in the opinion polls early in the campaign and then did not materialize in the election
I believe the same will be the case for a gay marriage referendum (which must take place), support may be strong for it at the moment but I believe that it will not pass a referendum.

As for the civil unions bill passing without a peep from the public I think that was more to do with it not requiring a referendum, there will be more than a peep about same sex marriage.

And by the way Gilmore was elected because he was a leader of the Labour Party, a perceived alternative to FF, nothing to do with his lack of religion.

And one point about immigration.
In the US any child born there is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents legal status

Not so in Ireland

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution , passed by a a majority of 79% in June 2004 means that
'a person born in the island of Ireland........ who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.'

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You have missed the point about Norris, deliberately I presume.

The point not whether he would be running for election in the US
The point is that support for a gay man in the presidential election was strong in the opinion polls early in the campaign and then did not materialize in the election

And the point I made was that no one cared if he is gay or not. It wasn't a vote on the acceptance or otherwise of homosexuality. See Hoof Hearted's post for the typical republican reaction to it.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I believe the same will be the case for a gay marriage referendum (which must take place), support may be strong for it at the moment but I believe that it will not pass a referendum.

I'd say it would be close. It is due to be part of the constitutional review. You wouldn't get that from the republicans in the US.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As for the civil unions bill passing without a peep from the public I think that was more to do with it not requiring a referendum, there will be more than a peep about same sex marriage.

If same sex marriage was such an issue to people surely it would have caused a bit of a stir. Clearly its not.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And by the way Gilmore was elected because he was a leader of the Labour Party, a perceived alternative to FF, nothing to do with his lack of religion.

Totally agree nothing to do with his religion or lack of. That's the point I was making no one cares. How do you think an atheist would get on in the republican party? Would one become leader?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And one point about immigration.
In the US any child born there is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parents legal status

Not so in Ireland

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution , passed by a a majority of 79% in June 2004 means that
'a person born in the island of Ireland........ who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.'

I didn't say anything about immigration not sure what you are replying to.

nagirrac

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Seeing as you brought this up, a homosexual relationship is sin, and so is a pre-marital hetrosexual relationship, possible equal in gravity. So please have a good laugh at me if you like, for me mentioning the word "sin". So what's the next group to get their "rights". Here in the US, the NAMBLA (look it up), is where the LGBT cause was half a century ago. In 20 years time, will NAMBLA get their "rights" too? Would you be OK with that? I suggest that if there is an Obama equivalent in 20 years or so, that president will be courting their vote.

Homosexual acts and pre-matital sex may be sinful in the eyes of the Catholic church but they are not against the law in any modern civilized country. Child molestation and rape, failure to report such crimes to the authorities, protecting molesters and rapists from the law, failure to cooperate in inquiries into abuse, etc. are all against the law i.e. crimes that should be punished by civilized societies. In this regard parents have a lot more to worry about from the Catholic church given their record than they have from an organization that according to wiki at least no longer exists.

Given their handing of the child abuse scandals in Ireland and worldwide there is a much stronger case to be made that the Catholic church should be outlawed as there is against NAMBLA.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

And the point I made was that no one cared if he is gay or not. It wasn't a vote on the acceptance or otherwise of homosexuality. See Hoof Hearted's post for the typical republican reaction to it.

I'd say it would be close. It is due to be part of the constitutional review. You wouldn't get that from the republicans in the US.

If same sex marriage was such an issue to people surely it would have caused a bit of a stir. Clearly its not.

Totally agree nothing to do with his religion or lack of. That's the point I was making no one cares. How do you think an atheist would get on in the republican party? Would one become leader?

I didn't say anything about immigration not sure what you are replying to.

If Gilmore was running for a single position, i.e President , then certainly his lack of religion would become an issue, and even though you do not hear much about same sex marriage at the moment you will certainly have a robust debate when it come up for a vote in a referendum.

It does not really matter 'what you would get for Republican's in the US', the point is that a for all our talk of bring liberals and loving what Obama does, a referendum on same sex marriage would be a close run thing in 21st entry Ireland

I prefaced the immigration point with the line 'And one point about immigration' as an indication that it was outside of the scope of a reply to your specific post.

mcmoustache

I think people are over-thinking this. I don't think most of us here are arsed about the history of the parties or the voting record of their respective members.

We get most of our information from the tv and Republicans always come across as god-bothering, gun-loving hillbillies. They actively play to that stereotype to appeal to their base, it gets broadcast around the world and it comes across as crazy to most of us here.

That's all it is. It's got little to do with fiscal or social policy or their histories.

20Cent

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If Gilmore was running for a single position, i.e President , then certainly his lack of religion would become an issue, and even though you do not hear much about same sex marriage at the moment you will certainly have a robust debate when it come up for a vote in a referendum.

Our current president is an atheist and that didn't become an issue. Same sex marriage will be a robust debate but I think people are sick of religions imposing their ideas on others.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It does not really matter 'what you would get for Republican's in the US', the point is that a for all our talk of bring liberals and loving what Obama does, a referendum on same sex marriage would be a close run thing in 21st entry Ireland

And wouldn't even be up for consideration in the freedom loving republican party.

Fr Tod Umptious

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think people are over-thinking this. I don't think most of us here are arsed about the history of the parties or the voting record of their respective members.

We get most of our information from the tv and Republicans always come across as god-bothering, gun-loving hillbillies. They actively play to that stereotype to appeal to their base, it gets broadcast around the world and it comes across as crazy to most of us here.

That's all it is. It's got little to do with fiscal or social policy or their histories.

You have a point. A lot of it is the perception we have about the various parties.

I moved to America the day Clinton got elected for the second term.
I went there with the same opinions about Republicans that seem to be common here, backward, religious nuts, racist, angry etc.

I left it 6 years later with a very healthy respect for the Republicans, because I saw that they're were not like the people portrayed to me in the Irish media, they were normal

On the other hand the respect people had in Ireland for Clinton was not visible in the states, during his second term and during the scandal he was very unpopular.

mcmoustache

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

You have a point. A lot of it is the perception we have about the various parties.

I moved to America the day Clinton got elected for the second term.
I went there with the same opinions about Republicans that seem to be common here, backward, religious nuts, racist, angry etc.

I left it 6 years later with a very healthy respect for the Republicans, because I saw that they're were not like the people portrayed to me in the Irish media, they were normal

On the other hand the respect people had in Ireland for Clinton was not visible in the states, during his second term and during the scandal he was very unpopular.

That's it exactly. I've never lived in the states so I only know the politicians that make it onto the tv. I know that Giulianni was a republican and I'm sure that there are plenty like him in his party but it's the crazies that I tend to remember.

Republican primaries really bring out the crazy and that's what we see. The democrats come across as a lot less crazy. Whether they're more or less crazy/stupid is irrelevant. It's more about perception, as you said.

Hoof Hearted

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Never say never. There was a time when abortion, pre-marital sex, & homosexual relations would "never" be socially acceptable.

So if there wasn't a consent law this would be fine?

Who's is to say a simple change in the consent law can't remedy that stumbling block.
If the laws on murder can be twisted to allow abortion on demand, a change such as this will be easy in comparison, I'm sorry to say.

The slippery slope fallacy doesn't win you any points. Here's an example of why the Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't always apply.
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm

This isn't a ranting or a religion forum, so let's get back on topic please.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Like I said no openly gay or atheist would have a chance in the republican party president race, they do in Ireland.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are there right wing parties in Ireland?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A married couple is more stable. They have shown commitment to each other. Handing out kids to whoever wants them is not a indicator of being liberal. There are strict rules about it and rightly so.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You left out the part where Obama said.
You know, my belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live, that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible? That, you know, I don't presume to know.

There is a big difference between believing god created the world and that it was literally made in six days. Rubio thinks the earth is 5,000 years old. People and dinosaurs walked the earth together! Stars are 5,000 light years away. There were dinosaurs on Noahs ark!!

Can someone point out who these rational, clear republicans are I'm not hearing them.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

.........

Can someone point out who these rational, clear republicans are I'm not hearing them.

You are not listening for them, or you are not trying to listen for them, they are out there you know.

golden lane

ireland in general is so wrapped up in other countries business.....they have made a complete mess of their own.......

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Witcher

golden lane wrote: »

i'm from dublin......yes, i live in the uk.....

there you go again.........always interested in other countries........

weird, i would say......

Yeah let's all be insular and don't look outside our borders..real smart thinking...ya pick that up in the UK?

I hear the British were so concerned with other countries that they once had an empire...once. Now they pretend they still have relevance on the world stage. Stuck their nose into Iraq and Afghanistan too and had it taken off their face..be a long.time before they stick it into anyone else's business...bet you'll be happy with that..little insular paradise for ya there:pac:

But I digress...enough of 'Britain's Past 101' for today

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

An openly gay man ran for president of Ireland, his sexuality was not an issue for most people. This would not happen in the US republican party. That's the point being made can't make it any clearer.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is an openly gay td in FG the fact you didn't even know that is testament to my point. No one cares.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Belfast is in Northern Ireland whats that got to do with the discussion?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And that is changing here, its a bad thing the minister for justice said as much. In the US the republicans want to go backwards.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a big difference between a Christians who take the bible literally and those who don't. To take the bible literally one has to ignore established science like evolution, astronomy, carbon dating etc etc

Whats your point anyway? You seem to be trying to say Ireland is as backward as the republicans in order to explain what exactly?

Any word on these rational republicans I should be listening to?