The New Pope!

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

Goodshape

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think they're that far down the list at all. To put a visual perspective on it, there's not many institutions in the land that send out their message from places like this:



That's the catholic church in my small working class north-Donegal town. Just out of shot to the left is the primary school. 5 minutes walk down the back is the secondary school (and former convent).

I think the RCC pretty much top the list in terms of influence over the people, whether it's agreeing with them or being constantly required to disagree with them. There's no escaping their influence.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

hotmail.com

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why would anyone possibly care if two consenting adults decide to formalise their relationship...You just have to be a bigot to oppose it. Why would someone care? It's something that people that oppose same -sex marriage have to think about.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why would anyone possibly care if two consenting adults decide to formalise their relationship...You just have to be a bigot to oppose it. Why would someone care? It's something that people that oppose same -sex marriage have to think about.

But if that argument holds good, then we should disregard both gay and straight marriage - neither should have any legal, social, administrative or cultural significance.

The whole point about marriage is that it’s not a purely private affairs between the couple concerned. Hotmail and I can have all the hot monkey sex we like - this is purely hypothetical, you understand - and it’s nobody’s business but ours. And we can make all the lovey-dovey promises and vows to one another and light all the candles and scatter all the rose petals that we like and, again, it’s nobody’s business but ours. And this remains true whether hotmail and I are of the same sex, or of different sexes.

But when we marry, we are making our relationship other people’s concern. We are seeking recognition, acceptance, acknowledgment and support for our relationship from our family, our community, our wider society and the state. We cannot say that this only affects us; it affects everyone. Some people are going to be affected more than others, and some people are going to be affected in different ways than others, but marriage is fundamentally about the implications of, and impact of, our relations for and on other people. That’s the whole point. That’s why we do it.

So there is no good argument for SSM which says, basically, this is nobody’s business but the couple concerned. If you want to have a relationship which affects nobody but the two of you, then you don’t want to get married. If you want to get married, you’re making your relationship other people’s business.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

hotmail.com

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if that argument holds good, then we should disregard both gay and straight marriage - neither should have any legal, social, administrative or cultural significance.

The whole point about marriage is that it’s not a purely private affairs between the couple concerned. Hotmail and I can have all the hot monkey sex we like - this is purely hypothetical, you understand - and it’s nobody’s business but ours. And we can make all the lovey-dovey promises and vows to one another and light all the candles and scatter all the rose petals that we like and, again, it’s nobody’s business but ours. And this remains true whether hotmail and I are of the same sex, or of different sexes.

But when we marry, we are making our relationship other people’s concern. We are seeking recognition, acceptance, acknowledgment and support for our relationship from our family, our community, our wider society and the state. We cannot say that this only affects us; it affects everyone. Some people are going to be affected more than others, and some people are going to be affected in different ways than others, but marriage is fundamentally about the implications of, and impact of, our relations for and on other people. That’s the whole point. That’s why we do it.

So there is no good argument for SSM which says, basically, this is nobody’s business but the couple concerned. If you want to have a relationship which affects nobody but the two of you, then you don’t want to get married. If you want to get married, you’re making your relationship other people’s business.

I'm not sure you've convinced me that getting married is anyone else's business. I don't see how formalising your relationship in law affects "society" or "everyone" as you said? If a straight couple gets married, it doesn't change anything. Gay couples should be treated the same.

hotmail.com

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you think that marriage fundamentally shapes society then you need to get out more. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it is total rubbish to give marriage such prominence.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

hotmail.com

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I understand it entirely, I just give equality greater importance. Maybe you should too.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

hotmail.com

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never said it wasn't important.

I'm just saying that equality is the most important thing that should concern you.

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not sure you've convinced me that getting married is anyone else's business. I don't see how formalising your relationship in law affects "society" or "everyone" as you said? If a straight couple gets married, it doesn't change anything . . .

It certainly does. It changes their tax position, for one thing, which affects the public revenue, which affects all of us. It may change their immigration status, which again has knock-on effects on wider society (which is why we have immigration laws in the first place). It prevents one of them from being required to testify against the other in court, which can affect people who are the victims of a crime with which one of them is charged. It changes inheritance rights, which plainly affects the people who would inherit if the couple weren't married. It has implications for tenancies, which affects landlords, and other prospective tenants of the same property. It creates presumptions of paternity, which obviously affects children, and potentially affects the genetic but not married fathers of those children. It deprives people who would otherwise be next-of-kin of the right to be involved in critical medical decisions and personal care decisions.

Etc, etc, etc. I could go on at much greater length, but you get the point. You might argue that, individually, these things will only affect third parties in minor ways. But, cumulatively, marriage changes a lot of things, legally, socially and adminstratively, and those changes do have implications for a wide range of people who are not part of the couple. The whole argument for gay marriage is that it really does matter whether people are married or not; it really does change things, both between the individuals concerned, and between the couple concerned and others. If you deny that marriage has this effect, then you are implicitly deying that gay couples are disadvantaged by not being allowed to marry because, hey, marriage wouldn't change anything of significance anyway. What are they losing out on?

"It's irrational to oppose gay marriage because getting married has no effects" is a self-defeating argument, as far as I can see.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To some extent, it is. I have friends who have no desire to marry, and who are even a little contemptuous of those who do want to marry, and yet who would strongly support, and campaign for, the right to marry. To be denied a right that others have, to be singled out for different treatment, is objectionable to them even if the treatment itself is not problematic. You could say that what they want is the right to choose not to marry, when at the moment they have no choice in the matter. But, basically, what they want is equal treatment and equal regard in the eyes of the law.

floggg

Peregrinus and Peter Barrins - you are right that marriage is important to society as a whole and indeed there are valid public policy reasons for the state to support it as it does.

What you are missing though is any objectively valud reason why the state should allow opposite sex couples to marry but not same sex couples.

Peregrinus listed various ways third parties will be "effected" by it. But third parties already have to deal with those consequences for opposite sex marriages.

If you offer those advantages to some couples, what objective public policy reasons are there to deny it to others? Equality law does allow unequal treatment but there has to be a good reason for it!

And the fact that some people may not be used to same sex couples or comfortable with it isn't a good reason. People weren't used to interracial couples in the states but that wasnt a value reason for a ban on interracial marriage!

If the "ick" factor is the sole reason for opposing it, then that is bigotry.

TP1969

floggg wrote: »

I don't care what they think. I care about what they do.

I also care about what they do which is why I never tire of trying to educate others to the disgusting history, and try to encourage others to think for themselves and not be bamboozeled by a clutch, as I have said, of hysterical virgins who control this disgraced institution.

floggg wrote: »

I care about the legislative and social initiatives they spend vast amounts of money and political influence in supporting or opposing. I care about the message they send to confused catholic teens or to catholic families of gay people and the damage that does.

Caring is one thing, but what do you do about it? It may well be you do an awful lot, but simply “caring” seems to serve no purpose.

I prefer to try to engage others and try to get them to think for themselves. The sectarian nature of education in Ireland has succeeded in producing generations of men and women who were made to feel guilty about themselves, their bodies, their pleasures and their primary instincts. I’ll say it again: by a group of sinister virgins.

Thankfully Ireland has made progress and the sinister virgins no longer have much sway in Ireland, and elsewhere. That’s not to say there isn’t a legacy of the hate, bile and bitterness those sinister virgins taught to generations, and we have made progress in that the younger generations are vastly more free to express them sexually, unhindered by the teachings of the sinister virgins.

To me, a better use of my time is to try to keep educating and getting the message across that the only things the catholic church has to offer is hate, nastiness, bitterness and so on. Even now, they teach that homosexuality is a moral disorder, and why anyone wants to dignify such a disgraceful teaching by taking the teachers of that hate philosophy seriously, beggers belief. Far better to simply ignore them and spend ones time encouraging others to do likewise, and instead spend their time educating others to think for themselves.

floggg wrote: »

It's great that they seemingly don't effect your life. If and when marriage equality comes up for a vote here, I would be very much surprised if the Catholic Church wasnt at the forefront of the opposition - in which case what they say and do could potentially have a detrimental effect on my life and relationships.

.

In fairness, one can only let them affect ones life if one wants them to affect it. I choose to ignore them and encourage others to do the same and to educate themselves. In so doing, when a vote comes for marriage equality, there will be more on the “yes” side and the catholic church, rightly, will be marginalised.

Simply because they want to be at the forefront doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at them, and doesn’t mean they will win, and the more effort we put into ignoring them and educating others, the greater the likelihood they will lose and be marginalised.

floggg wrote: »

So yes, I am concerned by what the new pope, the man who lead the (thankfully failed) opposition to marriage equality in Argentina, says and does.

And I am not, because to be concerned with what he says and does gives him an authority which is not only undeserved, but is the basis for him continuing.

Hoboo

peter barrins wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ill tell you a breed Jesus had no time for...............Romans. Jesus never said anything about Rome, the Vatican etc, the only reason its there is because the Emporer Constantine built St Peters Basilica there on the place of St Peters presumed grave.................and the only reason he did that is because he thinks he saw a cross in the sky before he was going into battle, painted crosses on the soldiers shields and were victorious. What kind of god now takes sides in war ? Not mine. FFS its the greatest load of blarney youll ever come across.


The fact it reflects life has nothing to do with it. The club has rules, yet very few abide by them. So why stay in the club ? You dont need to be part of the RCC to retain a link to Jesus, the RCC is closer to Satan than Jesus, and thats a fact. The people no, but the institution yes. I dont go to mass, Im in the process of having my baptism annulled. I do however do voluntary work in the local mens homeless shelter. Theres only about 10 of us that do, and not one mass goer between us. So where are all the Christian values of all the RC's ? Ill tell you where............at home in bed on a Saturday morning while Im washing filthy pi$$ covered sheets and bedclothes, safe in the knowledge they go to mass on Sundays and therefore theyre one of Jesus main men. Ridiculous.

He died on a cross, like many others who broke the law, not for our sins, but because he threatened the establishment of the time.

I agree on your last point, fundamentalism of any kind is extremely dangerous.

Peace.

floggg

TP1969 wrote: »

I also care about what they do which is why I never tire of trying to educate others to the disgusting history, and try to encourage others to think for themselves and not be bamboozeled by a clutch, as I have said, of hysterical virgins who control this disgraced institution.



Caring is one thing, but what do you do about it? It may well be you do an awful lot, but simply “caring” seems to serve no purpose.

I prefer to try to engage others and try to get them to think for themselves. The sectarian nature of education in Ireland has succeeded in producing generations of men and women who were made to feel guilty about themselves, their bodies, their pleasures and their primary instincts. I’ll say it again: by a group of sinister virgins.

Thankfully Ireland has made progress and the sinister virgins no longer have much sway in Ireland, and elsewhere. That’s not to say there isn’t a legacy of the hate, bile and bitterness those sinister virgins taught to generations, and we have made progress in that the younger generations are vastly more free to express them sexually, unhindered by the teachings of the sinister virgins.

To me, a better use of my time is to try to keep educating and getting the message across that the only things the catholic church has to offer is hate, nastiness, bitterness and so on. Even now, they teach that homosexuality is a moral disorder, and why anyone wants to dignify such a disgraceful teaching by taking the teachers of that hate philosophy seriously, beggers belief. Far better to simply ignore them and spend ones time encouraging others to do likewise, and instead spend their time educating others to think for themselves.



In fairness, one can only let them affect ones life if one wants them to affect it. I choose to ignore them and encourage others to do the same and to educate themselves. In so doing, when a vote comes for marriage equality, there will be more on the “yes” side and the catholic church, rightly, will be marginalised.

Simply because they want to be at the forefront doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at them, and doesn’t mean they will win, and the more effort we put into ignoring them and educating others, the greater the likelihood they will lose and be marginalised.




And I am not, because to be concerned with what he says and does gives him an authority which is not only undeserved, but is the basis for him continuing.

So you don't care, yet you still spend your time trying to counter their message and tell others how bad they are?

Sounds like you care in a pretty similar way to me (perhaps more so)!

No offence, but I think you are too caught up in trying to downplay their power and authority and you're missing the point I'm making entirely.

It's because people are wiling to voice their disagreement that their power is waning. The dissent and discussion encourages critical thinking.

And yes, I believe marriage equality will win - but only because people will and are standing up and countering their message. It's because people care enough to take a stand that their power is waning.

But even if we get equality here, religion is still a powerful force across the world. While its been evangelical types pushing it, the RCC has not taken a stand against the kill the gays laws in Uganda, and some African church officials seem to be giving it some tacit support.

Highlighting that sort of thing can be helpful to exert pressure on the RCC and others, perhaps not to change their attitudes, but to think twice about what they say or do publicly. That might be a very small start, but it would do more to help Ugandan LGBT people than just brushing it off as the words of silly old virgins and letting them say or do what they like.

TP1969

TP1969 wrote: »

I also care about what they do

floggg wrote: »

So you don't care,

I don’t know how more plainly I could have put it! J

floggg wrote: »

… you still spend your time trying to counter their message and tell others how bad they are?

I’ts one thing I do with my time, yes. I was making the point that to just say “I care” isn’t enough for me.

floggg wrote: »

And yes, I believe marriage equality will win - but only because people will and are standing up and countering their message. It's because people care enough to take a stand that their power is waning.

Again, for me “belief” isn’t enough, and my aim is to continue to help more and more people see the disgusting truth behind this corrupt and wicked organisation, run be a few sinister virgins.

floggg

TP1969 wrote: »

I don’t know how more plainly I could have put it! J






I’ts one thing I do with my time, yes. I was making the point that to just say “I care” isn’t enough for me.



Again, for me “belief” isn’t enough, and my aim is to continue to help more and more people see the disgusting truth behind this corrupt and wicked organisation, run be a few sinister virgins.

Sorry. I misread it. Dangers of reading on a small phone screen!

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

floggg wrote: »

Peregrinus and Peter Barrins - you are right that marriage is important to society as a whole and indeed there are valid public policy reasons for the state to support it as it does.

What you are missing though is any objectively valud reason why the state should allow opposite sex couples to marry but not same sex couples. . . .

Just to clarify - I can't speek for Peter, but I favour full legal recognition for same-sex marriage on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage. I just think hotmail's arguments for this are misconceived, and in the long run not helpful (because easily debunked).

Cosmic Maybe

So in other matters anyone know what Francis's views on Harry Potter are? I know Benny disapproved (just shows people tend to ignore the pope when it suits).

Peregrinus

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

So in other matters anyone know what Francis's views on Harry Potter are? I know Benny disapproved (just shows people tend to ignore the pope when it suits).

I don't think Benny did disapprove. An author sent her a copy of an anti-Harry Potter book, and he wrote her a polite letter back saying, basically, that he had passed it on to someone who could care.

peter barrins

This post has been deleted.

Cosmic Maybe

Interesting article on the Huffington Post, relevant to this thread

"Is Pope Francis Secretly Pro-Gay?"

1ZRed

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

Interesting article on the Huffington Post, relevant to this thread

"Is Pope Francis Secretly Pro-Gay?"

I'd sooner believe Is Pope Francis Secretly Gay?

wonderfulname

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

Interesting article on the Huffington Post, relevant to this thread

"Is Pope Francis Secretly Pro-Gay?"

That doesn't really make any sense, it's a bit of a leap to claim that he is pro marriage equality in private because he pushed for civil unions, it's more likely in my opinion that he recognised both the need/eventuality of legal recognition and his faiths opposition to "the redefinition of marriage" and so promoted a compromise. Seems like a level headed response, as much as people seem to want Francis to be some breath of fresh air he's theologically very close to the last pope, he just doesn't seem to suffer so much from foot in mouth syndrome.