And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Billy86

1123heavy wrote: »

I won't be doing any sucking up, I honestly couldn't care (unlike some people who feel the need to report every other post).

And to dear mrsbyrnes, you don't seem too mentally fit yourself, love. Do pipe down dear.

This from the guy claiming that the voices in his head speak with all the animals on earth. :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

Vote No.

God forbid anyone of you shall have to give up a child to adoption in the future, how can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you're creating the chance for that poor child to be raised by a same sex couple ? I shudder to think of the trauma it will cause the child and our future generations to come.

The future is in our hands, make the sensible decision and vote no. Gay people can do whatever they want between themselves, but they cannot and will not have our children !

They can already adopt, sorry to tell you but you seem to.have slept through that little breakthrough :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does a doctor have to have had an illness in order to understand how to treat it?

Do priests not usually have parents growing up who are married, relations who are married, friends who are married?

What does anyone know about marriage that a priest doesn't, before they get married?

Chances are the priest has experience of more marriages than most people, so to suggest they know fcukall about marriage would be an ill informed assertion.

It's not like priests live in a bubble excluded from society either.





Plenty of people get married without going to marriage classes run by the RCC?

Isn't the whole point of the referendum to include LGBT people in the number of people who opt for civil marriage?

Would you let someone operate on you just because his parents were surgeons and he had watched them for a few years?

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

Oh I'm in stitches ... ha ...ha ... ha ... yawn.

I know full well what I'm talking about when it comes to ssm and them getting their hands on children, just cos you don't agree is irrelevant. You have your views and I have mine, I managed to state mine without attacking anyone who had differing views, I recommend you try it too.

What do you mean by this? You make it sound as if gay people are evil and shouldn't be allowed near children.

humanji

MOD: 1123heavy banned for a couple of weeks. For everyone else, if you don't like what someone posts, refute what they say and don't just take petty swipes at them.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you let someone operate on you just because his parents were surgeons and he had watched them for a few years?

Your original assertion was that priests knew fcukall about marriage. I used the analogy of the doctor who never had a disease himself, but was qualified to treat it. RC priests are qualified to comment on RC marriage. They are also entitled to have an opinion on marriage equality, because they too are governed by the Constitution.

If you're suggesting that priests aren't qualified or shouldn't be entitled to an opinion on marriage equality, then you're also going to have to discount the opinions of anyone else who isn't married, unless of course you're willing to accept that just because they're married, doesn't make anyone an authority on the subject.

iDave

Still yet to read a convincing argument against SSM.

Maximus Alexander

iDave wrote: »

Still yet to read a convincing argument against SSM.

You might be waiting a while. The only argument against it is hate.

Beano

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your original assertion was that priests knew fcukall about marriage. I used the analogy of the doctor who never had a disease himself, but was qualified to treat it. RC priests are qualified to comment on RC marriage. They are also entitled to have an opinion on marriage equality, because they too are governed by the Constitution.

If you're suggesting that priests aren't qualified or shouldn't be entitled to an opinion on marriage equality, then you're also going to have to discount the opinions of anyone else who isn't married, unless of course you're willing to accept that just because they're married, doesn't make anyone an authority on the subject.

of course priests are entitled to an opinion on marriage. its just that that opinion carries no extra weight just because they are a priest. You are also correct to say that they are qualified to comment on RC marriage. This referendum is about civil marriage so any expertise they have on RC marriage is irrelevant.

DeJa VooDoo

I reckon the referendum will be defeated because enda's due another wallop. That chap never learns.
Nothing to do with what's been voted on.

Timberrrrrrrr

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I reckon the referendum will be defeated because enda's due another wallop. That chap never learns.
Nothing to do with what's been voted on.

You have no respect for the Irish people at all do you? :rolleyes:

DeJa VooDoo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have no respect for the Irish people at all do you? :rolleyes:

And even less for people who live among us who wore the uniform of a disgusting terror force like the british army.

Peist2007

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

And even less for people who live among us who wore the uniform of a disgusting terror force like the british army.

It's good to gather all the loons somewhere. I see this thread is where its at.

Balmed Out

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

And even less for people who live among us who wore the uniform of a disgusting terror force like the british army.

I cant see the relevance ...

I think your wrong and the referendum will be passed. Even elderly people I know arent overwhelmingly against it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Peist2007 wrote: »

It's good to gather all the loons somewhere. I see this thread is where its at.

Oh good our leaders here, crack open the coffee and donuts

Timberrrrrrrr

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

And even less for people who live among us who wore the uniform of a disgusting terror force like the british army.

Blah blah blah blah blah :rolleyes:

LorMal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Don't think there is much in terms of address or organisation on them.
If I was to guess I would say a evangelical group in Mayo assuming that they are being sent around a few counties. Few catholic groups would spend the money. If it is just a local thing then it could still be from the catholics though.

I agree - I don't think this leaflet is from the Catholic Church or any other mainstream religious organisation. The wording sounds more like one of the more fundamental evangelical Christian groups.
I do not like the inflammatory and divisive language it uses. I do not have a problem with any organisation setting out their point of view prior to a referendum though (as long as it does not incite hate).
I do not think this represents the current thinking of the Catholic Church so some of the comments on here may be misplaced.

DeJa VooDoo

Balmed Out wrote: »

I cant see the relevance ...

I think your wrong and the referendum will be passed. Even elderly people I know arent overwhelmingly against it.

I'm just saying that, like the Seanad referendum, where getting rid was probably the right thing for all the use it is, the people voted to keep it.
This was done, as kenny himself admitted, to give the government a slap.
We've a long history of doing that.

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

I agree - I don't think this leaflet is from the Catholic Church or any other mainstream religious organisation. The wording sounds more like one of the more fundamental evangelical Christian groups.
I do not like the inflammatory and divisive language it uses. I do not have a problem with any organisation setting out their point of view prior to a referendum though (as long as it does not incite hate).
I do not think this represents the current thinking of the Catholic Church so some of the comments on here may be misplaced.

The Catholic Church will present pretty much the same view in a more palatable way. There'll be no typos anyway

floggg

hoodwinked wrote: »

to be honest they are the people who changed my attitude towards religion to the point i agreed to have our daughter baptized (as my husband desperately wanted to) purely because of their attitudes and it's the kind of attitude i'd love for them to pass onto her, but while priest's like him aren't the norm they are the prevailing attitudes coming forward in younger priests in the church, while like other professions the older outdated views are dying out. the sooner the better imo.

but its easy to say "the church" agree with literature like this, when the truth is MANY of it's members like my husband are disgusted something they believe in is being abused in this way to hurt others, and all because other people simply want the choice to marry someone they love.

The thing is, if they don't stand up and be counted (on this and other issues), they are allowing things to be said and done in their name which cause great harm to others.

While its not an institution that lends itself to much debate or self examination, I think more progressive Catholics (both clergy and lay people) need to stand up and reject the more intolerant teachings from their church. Nothing will change with quiet obedience.

One eyed Jack

Beano wrote: »

of course priests are entitled to an opinion on marriage. its just that that opinion carries no extra weight just because they are a priest.

Like I said earlier - chances are they will have more experience of more people's marriages than your average person in Ireland. That immediately gives their opinion more weight than someone who has no experience of marriage.

You are also correct to say that they are qualified to comment on RC marriage. This referendum is about civil marriage so any expertise they have on RC marriage is irrelevant.

I wouldn't say it was irrelevant, civil marriage in practical terms is not all that different from RC marriage on a day to day basis. This referendum is about writing it into the Constitution that LGBT marriages and their families will be entitled to equal recognition from society and the equal protection of society as heterosexual marriage.

Whether you choose or not to recognise the opinions of the RC is up to you as an individual, but you as an individual cannot state that the RC has no business commenting on a change to the Irish Constitution. They do, and their opinion still carries a lot of weight in Government circles (y'know, those spineless pricks elected by the people of Ireland), so while you might think their opinion is irrelevant or carries no more weight than anyone else's, there's a substantial amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's plenty more priests like hoodwinked's local priest eviltwin (I'd attend a few different masses regularly), and I think it's a pity they all get tarred with the same "anti-LGBT" brush that some people are eager to use. Those people who fail to understand that there are people within the RCC who advocate for marriage equality yet will tar them all with the same brush are no different to the minority of people within the RCC who tar all LGBT people with the same brush.

Where are they all, and why don't they tend to make their position known?

PeteFalk78

I'm going to vote Yes for SSM. For one reason and one reason only.

Because I'm sick to death of listening to it day in day out and hopefully a Yes vote will put an end to the populist pontificating from every corner.
This morning I had to endure Alison Curtis (Today FM) bleat on about Stephen Fry and he impending gay marriage. I'm absolutely convinced he (or any other person of his public standing) wouldn't have got as much airtime if he wasn't gay.

I'm sooooo fuct up listening to the faux outrage and populist preachers.

Peist2007

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I'm going to vote Yes for SSM. For one reason and one reason only.

Because I'm sick to death of listening to it day in day out and hopefully a Yes vote will put an end to the populist pontificating from every corner.
This morning I had to endure Alison Curtis (Today FM) bleat on about Stephen Fry and he impending gay marriage. I'm absolutely convinced he (or any other person of his public standing) wouldn't have got as much airtime if he wasn't gay.

I'm sooooo fuct up listening to the faux outrage and populist preachers.

Agreed. I think Stephen Fry would be mentioned a whole lot less in the SSM debate if he werent gay.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your original assertion was that priests knew fcukall about marriage. I used the analogy of the doctor who never had a disease himself, but was qualified to treat it. RC priests are qualified to comment on RC marriage. They are also entitled to have an opinion on marriage equality, because they too are governed by the Constitution.

You say what? You are seriously claiming that calibrate priests 'are entitled to have an opinion on marriage, because they to are governed by the constitution'????

Well like the rest of unwashed humanity may be entitled to an 'opinion' as long as they don't get to ram it down everyone's else's throats. HOWEVER priests are not governed by the constitution in their role as priests - they are governed by Canon Law.

Now in Ireland the various religious consider Canon law a separate jurisdiction by which they do not recognise Irish legal procedures.

Hence the scandal of religous not reporting child sexual abuse by its members to the relevant authorities.

A priest is no more qualified or mandated to pontificate on marriage than a pig farmer would be on turf production. There is no link, no causation and no mandate for priests to inform anyone on their pursuit of legal rights as a citizen of this country.

In the past we have had the church attempting to control every aspect of people's lives as happened after independence. The sooner that appalling interference and indoctrination is outed for what it is the better for all.

tigger123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I'm going to vote Yes for SSM. For one reason and one reason only.

Because I'm sick to death of listening to it day in day out and hopefully a Yes vote will put an end to the populist pontificating from every corner.
This morning I had to endure Alison Curtis (Today FM) bleat on about Stephen Fry and he impending gay marriage. I'm absolutely convinced he (or any other person of his public standing) wouldn't have got as much airtime if he wasn't gay.

I'm sooooo fuct up listening to the faux outrage and populist preachers.

It's fantastic that same sex relationships are talked about, are public, and are out in the open. And not like before when it was the love that dare not speak its name.

Celebrity weddings are showbiz gossip. If ya don't like it, change the channel.

floggg

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yeah to be clear my concern was not for the child as I believe that as long as an effort is made to have some socialization of the opposite gender in the childs life, adoption between same sex couples is a completely valid family unit (and arguably they are more likely to be more 'motivated' parents as its long hard highly vetted process that isn't just fallen into).

It was to do with the idea that it would make the process harder for the birth mother (and its not that out there an idea as I'm sure of the women who choose adoption to handle crisis pregnancy are motivated by religious principles). As I said it was a minor concern that wouldn't have caused me to vote no and looking at the actual rates its not even that

As you say though this referendum isn't about this adoption as such but I thought part of the reasoning was why this is needed (apart from the obvious equality angle) is that the partnership agreements that exist currently have issues legal issues around a gay couples children (like in terms of death of a partner and so on?)

Edit: Anyway these issues could have been solved by a softening of the churches stance

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a birth mother can really have much say in who adopts their child at present outside of family adoptions.

Allowing same sex couples to adopt wouldn't change that.

Also, I think if a mother is giving up a child to be raised by other people, she shouldn't be allowed impose stipulations and pre-conditions on how the child is to be raised.

Beano

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like I said earlier - chances are they will have more experience of more people's marriages than your average person in Ireland. That immediately gives their opinion more weight than someone who has no experience of marriage.

I wouldn't say it was irrelevant, civil marriage in practical terms is not all that different from RC marriage on a day to day basis. This referendum is about writing it into the Constitution that LGBT marriages and their families will be entitled to equal recognition from society and the equal protection of society as heterosexual marriage.

Whether you choose or not to recognise the opinions of the RC is up to you as an individual, but you as an individual cannot state that the RC has no business commenting on a change to the Irish Constitution. They do, and their opinion still carries a lot of weight in Government circles (y'know, those spineless pricks elected by the people of Ireland), so while you might think their opinion is irrelevant or carries no more weight than anyone else's, there's a substantial amount of evidence that proves otherwise.

their opinion has absolutely no more weight than anybody elses when it comes to deciding who can have a civil marriage. priests have one vote the same as the rest of us. i'm sure the catholic church will have its priests preaching sermons about the awfulness of same sex marriage in the run up the referendum but in the majority of cases they will be preaching to the converted. we are lucky to live in a time where the hate-filled nonsense spouted from the pulpit no longer has significant weight on how people live their lives.

Beano

floggg wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a birth mother can really have much say in who adopts their child at present outside of family adoptions.

Allowing same sex couples to adopt wouldn't change that.

Also, I think if a mother is giving up a child to be raised by other people, she shouldn't be allowed impose stipulations and pre-conditions on how the child is to be raised.

i think you're right on that. once the decision to give the child up for adoption has been taken the mother has no say in who the adopters are. at one point she wasnt even told who they were though i think that may have changed recently.

rozeboosje

I've said it before, elsewhere, and I'll be happy to repeat it here:

Ireland missed the boat on the debate on Same Sex Marriage. The actual debate was held almost 2 decades ago in the Netherlands. The end result was that the civil institution of Marriage was extended to same sex couples in the Netherlands and many countries have followed its lead.

Maybe, just MAYBE, back in 1995, out of ignorance and with nothing to compare it to, somebody might have thought that they could validly hold an opposing view. But in 2015, all one needs to do is point out how society hasn't disintegrated in all the countries where Same Sex Marriage is now on the statute books, and their mental health services are NOT overrun by poor unfortunate kids dealing with the trauma of having to live in a household run by homosexuals.

So any objection based on any assertion that Same Sex Marriage undermines society or is "bad for children" can be dismissed out of hand. No further discussion is needed.