State Apology to Homosexuals

2smiggy

What are they apologising for ? Was it not illegal at the time. I'm sure over the next few years drugs will be decriminalised, will we be apologising to the drug abusers (of today) as well ?

RWCNT

Lilly Nutritious Scabby wrote: »

Another pr stunt to deflect from
Other issues eg health and homeless issues ...don’t see any apologies for those waiting on trolleys.... the social media/pc brigade will lap it up

Yeah, because the PC lefty types never address those issues at all :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

2smiggy wrote: »

What are they apologising for ? Was it not illegal at the time. I'm sure over the next few years drugs will be decriminalised, will we be apologising to the drug abusers (of today) as well ?

Interesting how you had to force the analogy to even make it seem like it fits. By selecting, solely, the drug abusers. The majority of users of a drug that is likely to be decriminalized are moderate users and not "abusers" at all. And perhaps we SHOULD be apologizing to them.

But to force the square peg of your analogy through the round hole to make it fit, you had to ONLY select the abusers of the drug and no one else, in order to make them analogous to the gay community? Why do you think that is? Why, to use your analogy, did you feel the need to make homosexuals analogous to the worst sub section of users of drugs?

Your analogy therefore seems to say a LOT less about the apology they made than it does about your personal attitude to homosexuals.

Peregrinus

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How many people were actually prosecuted for homosexual activity pre 1993?

We don't have figures. As noted earlier in the thread in the late 70s prosecutions were running at something over one a month, but there might have been more or fewer prosecutions at other times.

But it's worth remembering that those who suffered from this law were not just those who where prosecuted. The law could be used to vicitimise in various ways that fall short of prosecution - to threaten, to arrest, to bully, to blackmail, etc.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What was the average sentence?

From memory, it didn't normally attract a custodial sentence for a first offence, unless there were aggravating factors - one party a minor, evidence of lack of consent, etc. For most people the main adverse consequence was not the sentence on conviction, but the publicity associated with being tried, which could lead to brutal outing, relationship breakdown, job/career loss or social ostricisation.

RWCNT

2smiggy wrote: »

What are they apologising for ? Was it not illegal at the time. I'm sure over the next few years drugs will be decriminalised, will we be apologising to the drug abusers (of today) as well ?

THIS. I absolutely want an apology for when the guards took my sack of weed off me when I was 18 on the way to a gaff party. Scabby bastards probably smoked it for themselves and all.

Grayson

2smiggy wrote: »

What are they apologising for ? Was it not illegal at the time. I'm sure over the next few years drugs will be decriminalised, will we be apologising to the drug abusers (of today) as well ?

Maybe. And in some cases why not?

There have been cases in the Us for example where people were imprisoned for marijuana possession. Lives were ruined. If the US ever does a u-turn then maybe the Us should apologize to people who's lives were ruined by the war on drugs.

However there is one big difference. People can't help being gay. It's what some philosophers refer to as an ontological crime. The crime is effectively being gay. It may be countered that the crime was gay sex and people could have just avoided doing that but really the law is prohibiting gay people from having a loving fulfilling relationship. And the penalty was prison.

I only read the full story about this last night. It was a group of lads who beat a gay man to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Flynn

Armstrong and Maher gave statements to the Gardaí admitting their part in the killing. They had returned to the park after leaving their girlfriends at home and were joined by Kavanagh and Donovan. Armstrong stated that: "We were part of the team to get rid of queers from Fairview Park." In his statement which was read to court he told Gardaí: "A few of us had been queer-bashing for about six weeks before and battered about 20 steamers. We used to grab them. If they hit back we gave it to them." He indicated that he had not meant to kill Flynn and had dialed 999 for an ambulance when he saw blood coming from his mouth.[16] At trial, the court heard that Flynn had inhaled from blood bleeding from his mouth and nose and had died from asphyxia.[16]

At sentencing, all 5 walked free as they were given suspended sentences with Mr Justice Seán Gannon telling them that they would have to serve their sentences if they got into trouble again. The Judge said that he must demonstrate the abhorrence of the community by imposing sentences, but that he didn't think it necessary that they be served immediately by detention.[16]

This could never be regarded as murder[17]

In suspending the sentences of all Mr Justice Gannon said:

One thing that has come to my mind is that is that there is no element of correction that is required. All of you come from good homes and experienced care and affection[18]

Ireland was a fcuking horrible place back then.

EdgeCase

From a modern perspective, it's hard to believe how repressive Ireland was back in those days for a whole range of people who fell outside the very narrow social norms.

If you had a kid outside marriage, your marriage broke down, you were LGBT, even if you wanted to marry someone who was a protestant life was made extremely difficult.

Just to give you a mild example of how screwed up the place was, when Douglas Hyde, Ireland's first president died, the entire cabinet except for Noel Browne stayed outside the church as they wouldn't attend a protestant service.
You had the likes of Taoiseach, John Costello stating "I am an Irishman second, I am a Catholic first, and I accept without qualification in all respects the teaching of the hierarchy and the church to which I belong." in the Dail.

I still have family members who are effectively abroad due to having been exiled from Ireland due to marital breakdowns as divorce was impossible here and I doubt that's unusual. If you didn't fit in, you got a boat or a plane to somewhere that was less of a conservative backwater.

Varadkar's shift of position on abortion and same-sex marriage annoys me as it's inconsistent over the years, but I think he's very reflective of a middle Ireland that's shifted rather radically too and over a relatively compressed period of time.

It wouldn't be unusual though. I remember having passionate arguments in favour of gay marriage myself about 10 years ago before the consensus here changed. I had full debates with a gay guy about why it was a good idea and he was arguing against. Oddly, a few years later, he changed his mind and became a very strong advocate for it.

So, I don't know if I would condemn Varadkar for maturing and changing his opinion. I am willing to accept that he may have grown up and opened his mind.

What annoys me though is that FG more or less adopted all the issues that Labour (and to some extent the Greens) had been pushing for years and years and just absorbed them into their manifesto taking the credit for decades of hard work and chipping away at Ireland's straightjacket of social conservatism. Although, does it really matter? Politics is about driving change not necessarily getting the credit. All those years of hard campaigning did pay off, even if the credit is now being taken by a party that historically was pretty coldly conservative.

Historically, both FF and FG have been somewhere to the conservative right of what you might call Christian Democrats. Although, they've never really been parties that you could describe as ideologically driven. They're more like 'soft populists' who just shift policy with changes in social attitudes.

We've gone from a situation where in the *1990s* there was no divorce and buying a packet of condoms was controversial to one where it's suddenly a quite socially progressive country and has moved very much more into line with its northern European peers.

I know many of us hate the stereotypes that get trotted out in international media accompanied by lines like "traditionally staunchly catholic and conservative Ireland" (usually alongside a photo of a couple of nuns at a ballot box, some donkeys and maybe a church in a green field) when we do something that's socially progressive looking, but it is quite remarkable how rapidly the centre consensus in Ireland has shifted towards something far more open minded than it was even 15 years ago.

So in some ways, Varadkar is very reflective of a large swathe of 'middle Ireland' which has suddenly come out of the closet on a whole load of issues in a way too.

As for the apologies for the state's behaviour in the past. You have to follow that through with action i.e. exactly what the UK did by quashing convictions and expunging records.

These things *still* have real world implications for someone who may be having to explain that they have criminal conviction, basically as a sex offender, even if the law that applied then would be considered ludicrous by modern standards. It's still an unfair stain on their character and a burden they're still carrying.

If it's just a wishy washy apology, it's virtue signalling. If it's followed though by action. It's real.

I remain optimistic, but it will be interesting to see if it's delivered upon.

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

Maybe. And in some cases why not?

There have been cases in the Us for example where people were imprisoned for marijuana possession. Lives were ruined. If the US ever does a u-turn then maybe the Us should apologize to people who's lives were ruined by the war on drugs.

However there is one big difference. People can't help being gay. It's what some philosophers refer to as an ontological crime. The crime is effectively being gay. It may be countered that the crime was gay sex and people could have just avoided doing that but really the law is prohibiting gay people from having a loving fulfilling relationship. And the penalty was prison.

I only read the full story about this last night. It was a group of lads who beat a gay man to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Flynn



Ireland was a fcuking horrible place back then.

something similar around the same time



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Self


He shared a house with Vinny Hanley who presented MT-USA.

Odhinn

RWCNT wrote: »

THIS. I absolutely want an apology for when the guards took my sack of weed off me when I was 18 on the way to a gaff party. Scabby bastards probably smoked it for themselves and all.

Fuck your bag of weed. Me and the lads are down a moxy load of flagons from back in the day.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't know if that is true but I'll take your word for it.

It's true alright -


Marriage in Ancient Ireland

Marriage in the Celtic World

The thing about going back in history is at what point did the above come to be. What happened before that period? Gays were always around from the beginning, unless one erroneously things it came about by a permissive sexual culture - that some would like us to believe.

Gay men were of course always around from the earliest evolution of the species, but even though the ideologies changed, it remains consistent throughout human history that gay men were generally regarded as inferior. He'd better be an outstanding individual in some other respect which endowed upon him status in society, and therefore the protection of society.

In you last point you talked about shame. Where did this shame come from? I would say there was no shame until the point that religion came into the equation. And it's interesting you talk about high ranking ppl of wealth- because those ppl you'd expect and still today - are above all of that religious nonsense even though they pay lip service to it for votes. If you got the money you can do what you like - but if your a pauper - praise the lord and do his bidding. I do get your point.

Nah, there has always been shame attached to being an outlier. Religion served it's purpose in society to elevate a persons social status. It literally just provides another measure by which people would judge each other, and feel entirely justified in doing so.

nthclare

Im a pagan and I demand an apology for all the pagans who were called apostates....

My friend is a warlock, he's off on a rant aswel as my friend Jess the witch...

Let's all get an apology from king Leo, he has a lovely voice

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

They are not apologising on your personal behalf? Why would you say that? Do you think they are apologising because of your religion that was responsible for it?

Nope, my religion has nothing to do with an apology from the State for the way the State enforced laws prohibiting homosexual acts. They are apologising on my behalf if they're apologising on behalf of the State, because they represent the people of the State, the vast majority of whom have nothing to apologise for, because they didn't do anything wrong.

Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything. It's people are always responsible for their own attitudes and behaviour towards other people, no matter how they excuse themselves or attempt to justify their behaviour. In your opening post you mentioned that you couldn't believe how far this conservative Catholic country had come. It should hardly come as a shock to you that there are still plenty of conservative Catholic gay men in Irish society. I dunno 'bout you but I have many male friends who are conservative gay Catholics, some of whom are even proud to be so.

Ireland will never really be on the International stage. The last time we were on the international stage was because of Riverdance in the Eurovison Contest. No one internationally gives a flying f what we're about. But if even a small hint of what has gone here gets to Uganda or Russia then I think apologies and recognition of what has transpired here in the last few years might be worthwhile. Maybe not but it can't hurt.

I don't know have you ever actually met anyone from Uganda or Russia, but they're generally not as one-dimensional as identity politicians would want you to believe. Any I've ever met were grand, didn't do anyone any harm, had nothing to apologise for either.

facehugger99

RWCNT wrote: »

THIS. I absolutely want an apology for when the guards took my sack of weed off me when I was 18 on the way to a gaff party. Scabby bastards probably smoked it for themselves and all.

Perhaps those of us who bought a piece of briquette, masquerading as hash, from a dodgy scanger at the Ranalagh Triangle in the early 90's, could have some sort of redress scheme set up to compensate us?

Reparations next?

Jerichoholic

Great, now who's for a parade?

Annasopra

Irene Scarce Theatre wrote: »

"No secret that people involved in the founding of the state were homosexuals"

Padraig Pearse was the only one I was aware of. He was a homosexual paedophile. Personally I think homosexual paedophiles should be treated as an entirely separate group to homosexuals who are attracted to adults.

Kathleen Lynn captain of the Irish Citizens Army, Elizabeth, Nurse and Cumann na Mban activist

Annasopra

Phoebas wrote: »

Varadkar delivered repeal of the 8th and SSM.

He did in his sh ite.

nthclare

Will Vanadinker put an extra 20 Euro's a week in all our pockets ?

All this is a distraction as to what he's taking away rather than giving....

Uriel.

I think this apology is ridiculous. The State applied laws it or its predecessor State democratically created. They were stupid laws for sure, but it is ridiculous to be coming along and apologising. We can and have to learn from the past but we must also recognise the significant difference in culture and social fabric.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's true alright -


Marriage in Ancient Ireland

Marriage in the Celtic World

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.

Gay men were of course always around from the earliest evolution of the species, but even though the ideologies changed, it remains consistent throughout human history that gay men were generally regarded as inferior. He'd better be an outstanding individual in some other respect which endowed upon him status in society, and therefore the protection of society.

I'd accept that totally. Gays are not capable of bearing children. Well they are but you know what I mean. But that's completely different from being persecuted.

Nah, there has always been shame attached to being an outlier. Religion served it's purpose in society to elevate a persons social status. It literally just provides another measure by which people would judge each other, and feel entirely justified in doing so.

Yes absolutely right. Religion served to elevate a persons social standing. Not that I'm particularly impressed by anyone who used it for that purpose. I do still remember the 80's as a teenager and all those pious ppl around who loved to exude that they were pillars of the community.

AllForIt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with most of that. My OP was had noting to do with licking Varadkar arse, personally I don't particularly care for him.

I also don't care who brought about the motion to issue this apology - even if it was Varadkars idea - the Dail got behind it fully and noone on any political side gave the slightest hint they objected to it unlike many of the posters here.

_Kaiser_

AllForIt wrote: »

I'd agree with most of that. My OP was had noting to do with licking Varadkar arse, personally I don't particularly care for him.

I also don't care who brought about the motion to issue this apology - even if it was Varadkars idea - the Dail got behind it fully and noone on any political side gave the slightest hint they objected to it unlike many of the posters here.

No-one objects to it (and no-one in the Dail was going to object after SSM passing overwhelmingly and the parties ramping into electioneering mode at the moment - but more than that, there's no reason TO object)... but that doesn't mean that it's not just Leo just trying to keep his name in the news and feed his ego.

Honestly, the narcissism of the guy seems to know no bounds.

AllForIt

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No-one objects to it (and no-one in the Dail was going to object after SSM passing overwhelmingly and the parties ramping into electioneering mode at the moment - but more than that, there's no reason TO object)... but that doesn't mean that it's not just Leo just trying to keep his name in the news and feed his ego.

Honestly, the narcissism of the guy seems to know no bounds.

Look at this point here

Scott Curved Stalker wrote: »

More populist rhetoric. Gearing up for the pink vote in the next election.

This to me is nonsense. The gay rights issue in terms of at least the states attitude to it is largely solved afaic.

That does not mean in terms of the next election that I'm going to vote for FG simply based on what they have done. Yes there are ppl who are so loyal minded that they will vote for a party based on what they have done for them in the past but I certainly am not one of those ppl. And this way of voting is noting new - some ppl vote for the same political party their whole lives - no mater what.

For Tatransk to say that there is a demographic of 'pink voters' who are so crucial to FG that this apology is designed to get their votes is just so utterly ridiculous - not least because those sorts would argue that the gay demographic is much smaller than what it actually is. I'd hardly think the pink vote is ever going decide which party becomes the next government and I object to the idea that gays don't have a mind of their own in relation to any other social issue other than their own personal one, as if they don't have other issues that effect them personally like everyone else. What would be the point of a gay voting for Leo and FG again when the issue has already been solved in legislation?

Btw, a lot of posters here have objected to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything. It's people are always responsible for their own attitudes and behaviour towards other people, no matter how they excuse themselves or attempt to justify their behaviour.

I do not think you can so easily wash religion of their part in the equation. Religious texts which, for whatever reasons, appear to be important to adherents of many religions. And they often expressly forbid or demean or condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuals acts. The Bible being one of them.

You can blame "people" in order to make religion look clean all you like, but the fact remains religion influences people and beliefs, even unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs like the ones you subscribe to in your own religion, matter.

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think you can so easily wash religion of their part in the equation. Religious texts which, for whatever reasons, appear to be important to adherents of many religions. And they often expressly forbid or demean or condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuals acts. The Bible being one of them.

What part in what equation? This thread is about the current Taoiseach making an apology on behalf of the State for civil laws which made homosexual acts between men a criminal offence under civil law. Civil law is a matter for the State, it's entirely the States responsibility.

You can blame "people" in order to make religion look clean all you like, but the fact remains religion influences people and beliefs, even unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs like the ones you subscribe to in your own religion, matter.

It's nothing to do with making religion look clean, it's simply a matter of holding the people who are responsible for introducing the law in the first place, and the people who continued to uphold the law, responsible for their actions, attitudes and behaviours towards others, fuelled by their own bigotry and prejudice.

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

What do you mean otherwise good people? Who are you to judge anyone? Why should anyone even care what you think?

I would still maintain that it is people are responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, because religion is simply a set of ideas and ideals, one world view that is neither inherently good nor bad, but it's how people interpret it depends entirely upon themselves and their own inherent prejudices and bigotry.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

Nope, all it requires to have anyone convinced of anything is to feed their already held prejudices and bigotry which are based upon their own fear and ignorance. That applies to any idea that one wants to propagate about other people.

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

And yet for centuries before we probably would have been faithful foot soldiers. What's different now is the environment we grew up in. And this environment has only existed for a short time. Decades really. Up till this point religion would have been the dominant influence on our upbringing, our society, our laws and . our morals.

However there are still plenty of people out there who grow up being told that these iron age stories are true. They live their lives according to them.

In the US there are 50 million evangelicals. They tend to vote against gay rights and reproductive rights. There's many that are against civil rights. Remember the KKK is technically a religious organisation.

And the only way religion exists is because it's passed on like a virus. Parents become indoctrinated as children and they pass this onto their own children. And when they pass it on it's because they think it's the right thing to do.

The number of people who go out, research all the big religions and make a choice, is tiny. Most people have the religion their parents passed on to them.

The Bishop Basher

Grayson wrote: »

The number of people who go out, research all the big religions and make a choice, is tiny. Most people have the religion their parents passed on to them.

They still have a choice though. It is always a choice..

Doing nothing is also a choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rennaws wrote: »

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

I am not so sure. I think rather that their actions can be perfectly rational GIVEN what they believe. For example the parents who watch their children die or relatively easy to manage medical conditions. To someone like me that is an awful abhorrent and evil action.

To THEM however they are doing the absolutely rational and right thing GIVEN what they believe about the state of the universe. Given what their religion has taught them about the universe and it's creator. If I believed what they believe, I would sit denying my child medical care and watching them die too.

Beliefs matter. What religions teach matters. Trying to pretend religion is innocent and that people are solely to blame is really to only contrive to paint half the picture.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part in what equation?

Do keep up would you? I was replying to you saying "Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything." by explaining exactly how and where religion IS responsible in things like our historical attitude and condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality. I am pointing out that painting religion as innocent, and entirely blaming people, is a dishonest move to make.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's nothing to do with making religion look clean, it's simply a matter of holding the people who are responsible for introducing the law in the first place

Which is perfectly fine to do, but not while pretending religion and the religious had nothing to do with it. Or that many people who moved to make such laws, and other laws such as blasphemy laws or the 8th amendment which we only now are in the process of clearing out, were motivated by religious ideas, ideals and beliefs.

Religion has a LOT to do with it. Beliefs and what people believe actually matter. And the two are not as easily divorced as you seemingly want them to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean otherwise good people? Who are you to judge anyone?

Who am I not to? We as a species judge, singly and collectively, the actions and motivations of others. We do it all the time. Lets not pretend otherwise. But what I am speaking of here specifically are people who love their children, have no seemingly evil or malicious bone or motivation in their body that we are aware of. Yet due solely to what their religion teaches them about the universe and it's creator..... they basically watch their child die by denying them simply medical interventions.

It is easy for people to observe that and automatically assume that they must be awful or bad or evil people. I see no reason to think they are. I reckon they are just as normal as the rest of us, but have been motivated by their religious beliefs to perform actions abhorrent to the rest of us. Actions we likely would ALSO perform were we believing the things they do about their god.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would still maintain that it is people are responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, because religion is simply a set of ideas and ideals, one world view that is neither inherently good nor bad, but it's how people interpret it depends entirely upon themselves and their own inherent prejudices and bigotry.

But as I said, beliefs do matter. If you genuinely believe that your god (you know the one you have NO evidence to offer actually exists) is mightily offended by certain medical interventions..... you are likely to deny your child those interventions.

And we can sit back and pretend to hold them accountable for "their own actions, attitudes and behaviours" all we like, but the simple fact is we can not, or at least should not, be doing that without being cognizant of A) their beliefs and the importance of beliefs.

And if religion teaches things people genuinely believe, then we can not simply wash religion of responsibility of the actions of it's adherents as if somehow religions can not be blamed but only people can.