A significant day for democracy in Northern Ireland

[M-J-G]

No. You knew very well that what you were saying implicated the DUP, and their historic link to conservative protestantism. It's perfectly clear you singled them out by saying 'they' wanted to be a part of the UK while having different laws on abortion. Even the most unenlightened among us knows that Irish Nationalists call themselves that for a reason - they DON'T want to be part of the UK. It was clear you were picking on one grouping.

I didn't say you were criticising a religion either. Another diversionary answer.

This is precisely why I pointed out to you that the view on abortion was not held exclusively by conservative protestants, but also by conservative Catholics. Nor do I make either criticism or recommendation of this fact. Merely that it exists, so that your readers be not misled into thinking these views were only held by some Protestants.

*Note*
For my readers who are naive enough to assume I was picking on a group in particular, I was simply expressing how ironic it is that a country that supposedly has a majority who want to be part of the union can want laws that differ to the rest of the UK, and thus creating differences within the UK.
And for the record (and for any snowflakes) I am not targeting any religions or religiously motivated political groups, I am merely targeting hippocrates.

 

[M-J-G]

To be fair it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. It is impossible not to bring religion into it because it is already part of it. Unfortunately, other than becoming agnostic like me, I see no way out of it.

The religions will die off, which will be a huge leap forward in peace in many parts of the world, I'm just sad I won't be around to see it and it's much too engrained in society in many parts which don't know any different.

 

[The Agrarian]

*Note*
For my readers who are naive enough to assume I was picking on a group in particular, I was simply expressing how ironic it is that a country that supposedly has a majority who want to be part of the union can want laws that differ to the rest of the UK, and thus creating differences within the UK.
And for the record (and for any snowflakes) I am not targeting any religions or religiously motivated political groups, I am merely targeting hippocrates.

And so that is where my point becomes applicable. Despite your suggestion, I don't believe there is any direct evidence to suggest that a majority of NI voters want a different law on abortion. Neither is there any evidence that even a majority of DUP voters (who want to be part of the union) want a different law on abortion. This may be party policy, but not all voters will agree on or support every single policy. That would be a ludicrous suggestion. In fact, assembly voting patterns would also most likely result in a majority approval of the law realignment with rest of UK. Only the petition of concern would stop that from taking place.

 

[M-J-G]

If it is the case and the majority of the population want the laws to be the same, where is the problem? The majority would be getting what they want while some of the political leaders moan about it and in some cases paint themselves hippocrates.

 

[The Agrarian]

Well we don't actually know what the local population thinks, as they've never officially been asked. Leaving that aside, we actually have devolution here (or supposed to have) - the purpose of which being to make laws and run things in a way that may well be different to the other home nations. As I've said elsewhere, devolution was part of the Belfast agreement. It was created to give nationalists and republicans more of a direct influence on local things, and unionists wisely agreed, as it removes one of the reasons for a united Ireland.

States in America have their own variations on laws, some of them markedly different. That wouldn't necessarily mean they are hypocrites though, would it? I'm mean, they mostly still believe in the union of the states, despite wanting some devolved control.

 

[M-J-G]

If it's the case that differences in law between the UK and NI make no difference to the Union then it's not hypocritical.
But saying some laws need to be the same to protect the Union and that others can be different when it suits, would be.

 

[The Agrarian]

I don't believe that is the case. Some laws have no effect on the strength of the union. Others clearly do.

 

[M-J-G]

I don't believe that is the case. Some laws have no effect on the strength of the union. Others clearly do.

We all have different beliefs.

It's quite the mix up when ROI and mainland UK have common views that the NI representatives oppose.

I can understand being opposed to the change in abortion law, but I can't understand why anyone would be bothered about gay people getting married.

 

[yin ewe]

I have no real issue with gay marriage, my personal belief is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The problem I have is if the church I attend could be forced to perform a gay marriage against its will.

 

[M-J-G]

Can a church be forced to do that?
Why would it bother you if they were?
And why would a church oppose gay marriage in this day in age?

 

[The Agrarian]

We all have different beliefs.

It's quite the mix up when ROI and mainland UK have common views that the NI representatives oppose.

I can understand being opposed to the change in abortion law, but I can't understand why anyone would be bothered about gay people getting married.

Quite agree.

 

[The Agrarian]

A church won't be forced to perform a gay ceremony.

 

[The Agrarian]

It happens that civil partnership ceremonies were introduced in 2004 here. Same legal status as married couples. So there's no significant change in that regard anyway.

Some people do talk about gay marriage and abortion in the same sentence, and I don't concur with that. Gay marriage is indeed a matter relating to individual freedom that does not directly affect anyone other than the obvious.

Abortion is entirely different. It's a very difficult circle to square, because, while society should be sensitive to the issues around the mother, it is also incumbent upon it to protect vulnerable persons. While I think the matter of gay marriage has been settled for good, I don't think abortion will ever be completely settled because of irreconcilable competing needs.

Euthanasia is the next one!

 

[M-J-G]

A church won't be forced to perform a gay ceremony.

Are any of them willing perform ceremonies for members who are homosexual?

 

[The Agrarian]

Up until this summer only small denominations, such as the Quakers, Episcopal Church of Scotland, United Reformed Church, and assembly of trinitarian churches. The first big one added its name in July at the Methodist conference. It's only in principle at the moment, subject to the results of consultation, but the vote was overwhelmingly in favour. The church of Scotland is creeping in that direction, though it's unlikely that any of those denominations would ever force individual ministers to perform ceremonies against their conscience.

 

[Hindsight]

It happens that civil partnership ceremonies were introduced in 2004 here. Same legal status as married couples. So there's no significant change in that regard anyway.

Some people do talk about gay marriage and abortion in the same sentence, and I don't concur with that. Gay marriage is indeed a matter relating to individual freedom that does not directly affect anyone other than the obvious.

Abortion is entirely different. It's a very difficult circle to square, because, while society should be sensitive to the issues around the mother, it is also incumbent upon it to protect vulnerable persons. While I think the matter of gay marriage has been settled for good, I don't think abortion will ever be completely settled because of unreconsilable competing needs.

Euthanasia is the next one!

Euthanasia is possibly an easier issue to reconcile as the person to be / or who wishes to b euthanised is alive and thus can have a say in the matter. This is different to the unborn child. fundamental difference. I do not pass opinion or judgement on either matter as they are so delicate. But thought would just comment that I consider the two slightly differently. Regards.

 

[yin ewe]

Euthanasia is possibly an easier issue to reconcile as the person to be / or who wishes to b euthanised is alive and thus can have a say in the matter. This is different to the unborn child. fundamental difference. I do not pass opinion or judgement on either matter as they are so delicate. But thought would just comment that I consider the two slightly differently. Regards.

That's a very valid point, but surely that makes the protection of those who cannot speak for themselves all the more important. It is still a life after.

 

[Hindsight]

That's a very valid point, but surely that makes the protection of those who cannot speak for themselves all the more important. It is still a life after.

Yes. Agree. Any legislation would in my view (and here I said in my previous post that I did not hold opinions) require protections for such folk. And as such I consider such legislation is beyond political parties. Very difficult to provide freedoms for those individuals comfortable with the concept and protections if needed for those against. As ever I am unable to go further as too complex. Hey ho.

 

[M-J-G]

Done now

Same-sex marriage now legal in Northern Ireland

Couples can register to marry and those married outside of NI will have marriages legally recognised.

www.bbc.com

 

[The Agrarian]

For the majority of gay people, it brings little new. Marriage tends to have religious connotations, and as you have said, many people aren't interested in that today.

There's just a hint of irony though, that perhaps the people who will benefit the most from the change will be christian gay people, who would want to have a union that is structured on a christian ceremony rather than a civil partnership.