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

GalwayGuitar

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't know that paedos are split into straight/gay/bisexual...

So if you like young boys you're not gay?

bodice ripper

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

So if you like young boys you're not gay?

Hey lads, we've got a live one here.

No, that would make you a paedophile. do you think homosexuality and paedophilia are linked?

RDM_83 again

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't know that paedos are split into straight/gay/bisexual...

Well a lot of those horrific goings on were more Pederasty in a way, there's actually a bit of a debate about some of anti-same sex stuff in the New Testament if its just about Greek style pederasty or all male-male relations

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't know that paedos are split into straight/gay/bisexual...

I would suspect that the words "gay" and "paedophile" are going to be put into the same sentence by some people at every possible opportunity between now and the referendum.

lazygal

hoodwinked wrote: »

no he won't, the priest where we go to mass is very forward thinking and doesn't go for that crap, in fact his sermon's are more based on the real world of his parishioners, like a few weeks ago was one where jesus did something (i really zone out sorry) but he equated it all into a mental health awareness thing and where he basically said jesus would want you to love someone no matter who they are or what they are in to.

I don't doubt the man is a good person but his organization has an appalling view of gay people. I'm sure he'll be instructed to read out a letter from the higher ups about protecting us all from gay people being married and how we need to stop them having civil marriage available to them when the time comes.

johnnyskeleton

ScumLord wrote: »

"Good Christians, Christ calls you to action!"

I'd like to see that email.

I would have thought Christians frowned on people talking on behalf of Jesus and putting words in his mouth.

Email is also mentioned as a sin in the bible. It was communicated through a burning bush, which, when you think about it, is odd

GalwayGuitar

bodice ripper wrote: »

Hey lads, we've got a live one here.

No, that would make you a paedophile. do you think homosexuality and paedophilia are linked?

No but if you're into young lads I'd say there's a good chance you're bent.

Doctor Jimbob

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

So if you like young boys you're not gay?

The issue is that you're comparing a mental illness with a sexual orientation. A pedophile is a pedophile.

bodice ripper

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

No but if you're into young lads I'd say there's a good chance you're bent.

so, paedophiles who abuse prepubescent girls are heterosexual?

hoodwinked

eviltwin wrote: »

That's great, its great to see that kind of person in the church. Its just the overall organisation is very much against the idea of SSM so I wonder will the Archbishop have one of those letters they read out in every mass that appeals for a No vote.

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.

Doctor Jimbob

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

No but if you're into young lads I'd say there's a good chance you're bent.

I would say if you're into young lads there's a good chance you're a pedophile.

humanji

MOD: Folks, two important points:

1) This isn't a thread about the Catholic Church. The leaflet is apparently from a group that claims to be Christian. It is not an official document from any religious denomination. So please make an effort to tell the difference between official and unofficial leaflets.

2) Regardless of the above, if you want to rant about the RCC or want to make accusations about the organisation or any other religious group, this isn't the thread for you.

GalwayGuitar

bodice ripper wrote: »

so, paedophiles who abuse prepubescent girls are heterosexual?

Yes.

L.Jenkins

You'd swear the LGBT Community are going to gallop to the voting polls on the backs of straight people and children, while waving rainbow colored swords, with intent to slaughter everyone in their path. I'll be giving a yes to legalising SSM and I don't see what the RCCs issue is or those using the RCC banner is.

bodice ripper

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Yes.

shouldn't be letting the heteros get married so - think of the children.

PopePalpatine

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Oh look, the first person to complain about people being intolerant of intolerance.

All Manach does is complain about anyone to the left of John Charles McQuaid.

Leinsterblue

so the OP got a leaflet from Lucinda Creighton's new party ? is that it.

mrsbyrne

bodice ripper wrote: »

I don't know that paedos are split into straight/gay/bisexual...

Is it not the case that it's irrelevant wether a paedophile Is gay straight bi transgender etc. ? A paedophile is a paedophile end of. It seems most.paedophiles are in hetero relationships with kids.

PopePalpatine

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Ad hominem? The offending leaflet is right there in the link you silly sausage! :rolleyes:

Oh no, in Manach's world an unmarried non-virgin NOT being in a Magdalenekazett is much more offensive than this piece of shit.

hotmail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Is it not the case that it's irrelevant wether a paedophile I'd gay straight bi transgender etc. ? A paedophile is a paedophile end of. It seems most.paedophiles are in hetero relationships with kids.

If you are a believer in Catholicism or whatever, why aren't you against same-sex marriage?

Timberrrrrrrr

Peist2007 wrote: »

Would you stand up in the High Court and call a Judge thick because he wouldnt hear a case with zero evidence? No you wouldnt because it would be ridiculous.

Calling someone thick because they do not believe in something you cannot prove is, well, thick. Going back to the High Court example again, the burden of proof is on those making the allegations ie the Church. Building big shiny buildings and robbing poor people of their money does not equate to showing the existence of God.

I always find this one amusing, none of them have ever given a satisfactory rebuttal other than "I can feel god in my heart"

Annasopra

hotmail.com wrote: »

If you are a believer in Catholicism or whatever, why aren't you against same-sex marriage?

Ah here. Plenty of practising Catholics will vote for marriage equality. Theres no need to actively antagonise them.

hoodwinked

hotmail.com wrote: »

If you are a believer in Catholicism or whatever, why aren't you against same-sex marriage?

because most of the catholics i know are for equality for everyone and not just a select few? voting yes will not mean my husband will have to give up his religion and marry a man, it means he believe's his friends, his neighbours, his fellow compatriots have the right to choose who they marry for themselves, like he chose to marry me.

hotmail.com

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah here. Plenty of practising Catholics will vote for marriage equality.

Doesn't that undermine their beliefs?

Annasopra

hotmail.com wrote: »

Doesn't that undermine their beliefs?

So what. Let them off and accept their vote.

Or are you trying to lose votes in this referendum?

floggg

mrsbyrne wrote: »

That's because this thread is full of posters whose main stance is to be anti religion(in particular anti RCC, that's fine) and their pro SSM stance is only secondary.
As such they will not accept that atheists anti-theists and agnostics maybe anti SSM

I think the fact that it was full of faux Christian language would suggest it was either written by Christians or a rather unlikely disinformation and smear companion.

Guy:Incognito

Anyone got a link to that list that was doing the rounds years ago with all the big contradictions and mucky sex bits quoted from the bible with descriptions of what a sadistic ****er god is? Handy to have a print to out give these lads in return for their leaflet.

Doctor Jimbob

hotmail.com wrote: »

Doesn't that undermine their beliefs?

If Catholics avoided doing everything that would undermine their beliefs based on your way of looking at it, there would be no Catholics.

That isn't a dig at Catholics, btw, it's a dig at the warped viewpoint you're displaying.

PopePalpatine

Itzy wrote: »

Iona Institute? I say we post them some GCN magazines and a few Gay porn DVDs!

At the very least, what about signing up to a few porn sites with their email address? :pac:

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

That's great, its great to see that kind of person in the church. Its just the overall organisation is very much against the idea of SSM so I wonder will the Archbishop have one of those letters they read out in every mass that appeals for a No vote.

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.

I also attend a Pentecostal service and Bible study group and they're far more feverent about this kind of thing than most RC people I know... and then there are those people of no religious persuasion that just have a feverish aversion to LGBT people simply because they get a silly thrill out of winding people up and watching them suffer.

Muahahaha

Colten Tasty Fern wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the adoption legislation is, AFAIK, being dealt with prior to the referendum, (and leaving aside that male and female influence thing) you can really see the point of people denying equal rights to thousands of couples for the sake of a hypothetical situation where two couples wish to adopt and have the same income, ethnicity, medical histories, job security, length of marriage etc., but in the case of one couple a fanny or a willy is missing? Really?

I'm not 100% convinced either way. Mainly because I haven't heard any debate on gay adoption, none has occured whatsoever so I'm not fully informed.

However a family member made the point that when it comes to adoption the only consideration should be that of the best interests of the child, the interests of the couple trying to adopt are secondary to the equation, be that couple homosexual or hetreosexual. If it is the case that children are better served by having a male and a female influence in their life then it is in the childs best interests that they have both a male and a female influence. For my sibling this isn't about denying gay couples rights, its about doing whats best for children who are up for adoption. I guess its not that much different to a single parent trying to adopt- the parent might be the perfect parent but most people would agree that its in the childs best interests to have two parents where possible. In the case of adoption demand outweighs supply so it should always be possible to find two parents for an adoptee.

Anyway I just think there has been a total lack of debate on the issue. Gay marriage brings rights for gay adoption yet I haven't heard any pro or anti arguments to this in advance of the referendum thus far. I'm sure there are many voters who are pro-SSM but might have differing opinions on adoption.

hotmail.com

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If Catholics avoided doing everything that would undermine their beliefs based on your way of looking at it, there would be no Catholics.

That isn't a dig at Catholics, btw, it's a dig at the warped viewpoint you're displaying.

But surely if they consistently don't agree with Church teachings including gay marriage...it just makes it all a joke?

Grayson

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If Catholics avoided doing everything that would undermine their beliefs based on your way of looking at it, there would be no Catholics.

That isn't a dig at Catholics, btw, it's a dig at the warped viewpoint you're displaying.

I can't remember who said it but a quote I heard was "if a Christian lived according to the new testament they'd go mad, If they lived according to the old testament, they'd be a psychopath"

Doctor Jimbob

hotmail.com wrote: »

But surely if they consistently don't agree with Church teachings including gay marriage...it just makes it all a joke?

Maybe, or it could just be that the organisation has moved with the times - it's not a debate for this thread no matter how you look at it though.

JaseBelleVie

The Ragin' Cajun, Mr. James Carville, said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzVZz3vIvsI

Annasopra

hotmail.com wrote: »

But surely if they consistently don't agree with Church teachings including gay marriage...it just makes it all a joke?

So what!

Leave them off! Unless you are tryong to lose votes!

eviltwin

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.

I also attend a Pentecostal service and Bible study group and they're far more feverent about this kind of thing than most RC people I know... and then there are those people of no religious persuasion that just have a feverish aversion to LGBT people simply because they get a silly thrill out of winding people up and watching them suffer.

That doesn't change the fact they work for an organisation that has a very anti gay message at its ethos. I've nothing against individual priests, I'm sure many are of the "live and let live" variety but I have a major issue with someone choosing to be part of an organisation that has caused so much hurt to LGBT people.

hotmail.com

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So what. Let them off and accept their vote.

Or are you trying to lose votes in this referendum?

It just seems bizarre that practicing Catholics continue to disagree with Church teachings.

Doctor Jimbob

hotmail.com wrote: »

It just seems bizarre that practicing Catholics continue to disagree with Church teachings.

It seems more bizzare that you're determined to carry on this irrelevant discussion.

RDM_83 again

humanji wrote: »

MOD: Folks, two important points:

1)The leaflet is apparently from a group that claims to be Catholic.

Please don;t card me for ignoring mod instructions but is there actually anything in the thread (which I've been reading) or on the leaflet that indicates that they claim to be Catholic?
Because to me it reads much more like the signs and literature from Hardline Ulster Christian stuff or Evangelical Churches churches that have popped up some parts of Dublin.

ps saying because I've seen this stuff personally and these groups would definitely not call themselves Catholic!

shruikan2553

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced either way. Mainly because I haven't heard any debate on gay adoption, none has occured whatsoever so I'm not fully informed.

However a family member made the point that when it comes to adoption the only consideration should be that of the best interests of the child, the interests of the couple trying to adopt are secondary to the equation, be that couple homosexual or hetreosexual. If it is the case that children are better served by having a male and a female influence in their life then it is in the childs best interests that they have both a male and a female influence. For my sibling this isn't about denying gay couples rights, its about doing whats best for children who are up for adoption. I guess its not that much different to a single parent trying to adopt- the parent might be the perfect parent but most people would agree that its in the childs best interests to have two parents where possible. In the case of adoption demand outweighs supply so it should always be possible to find two parents for an adoptee.

Anyway I just think there has been a total lack of debate on the issue. Gay marriage brings rights for gay adoption yet I haven't heard any pro or anti arguments to this in advance of the referendum thus far. I'm sure there are many voters who are pro-SSM but might have differing opinions on adoption.

Same sex couples being able to adopt is being brought in regardless of the SSM result.

Studies have shown that it makes no differences between what gender the parents are.

Any evidence points to there being no problems.

humanji

hotmail.com wrote: »

It just seems bizarre that practicing Catholics continue to disagree with Church teachings.

MOD: Ask in the Christianity forum, if you want an answer. Don't derail this thread.

hotmail.com

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So what!

Leave them off! Unless you are tryong to lose votes!

We're having a discussion.

Of course, it's great if they vote in favour of it.

I'm merely pointing out the farcical idea that practicing Catholics vote in a way which differs from what their Church is telling them.

humanji

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Please don;t card me for ignoring mod instructions but is there actually anything in the thread (which I've been reading) or on the leaflet that indicates that they claim to be Catholic?
Because to me it reads much more like the signs and literature from Hardline Ulster Christian stuff or Evangelical Churches churches that have popped up some parts of Dublin.

ps saying because I've seen this stuff personally and these groups would definitely not call themselves Catholic!

Yep, you're right. I'll change that now.

Guy:Incognito

hotmail.com wrote: »

It just seems bizarre that practicing Catholics continue to disagree with Church teachings.

Is stoning people still part of the teachings (it's in the bible afterall)?

StudentDad

hotmail.com wrote: »

Doesn't that undermine their beliefs?

There is a distinction between church and state. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. On that basis alone we need marriage equality.

An individuals right to believe in a god is fine for individuals. They are accorded that right in law. The law does not or ought not entitle any religious individual or group of individuals to impose their beliefs on citizens who do not agree with those religious views.

Simply put it has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of fairness, human rights and equality in law.

SD

My name is URL

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out the farcical idea that practicing Catholics vote in a way which differs from what their Church is telling them.

It's usually called progress. People lead and churches are forced to follow or become irrelevant. Its been happening for thousands of years.

lazygal

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is stoning people still part of the teachings (it's in the bible afterall)?

Only if you're horsing into the prawns while wearing poly cotton blend clothes and on your period.

hoodwinked

Muahahaha wrote: »

I'm not 100% convinced either way. Mainly because I haven't heard any debate on gay adoption, none has occured whatsoever so I'm not fully informed.

However a family member made the point that when it comes to adoption the only consideration should be that of the best interests of the child, the interests of the couple trying to adopt are secondary to the equation, be that couple homosexual or hetreosexual. If it is the case that children are better served by having a male and a female influence in their life then it is in the childs best interests that they have both a male and a female influence. For my sibling this isn't about denying gay couples rights, its about doing whats best for children who are up for adoption. I guess its not that much different to a single parent trying to adopt- the parent might be the perfect parent but most people would agree that its in the childs best interests to have two parents where possible. In the case of adoption demand outweighs supply so it should always be possible to find two parents for an adoptee.

in fact after reading through pages of documents so far all studies coming from america have shown a child raised with two same sex parents are indistinguishable from children raised by two heterosexual parents,

i think the overall consensus was no matter how many parents a child had as long as they were loved and secure they in general did better in life, so a single mother, or a child with two mothers, or two fathers was likely to do better than the child raised by a mother and father who didn't give that child love or security.

hotmail.com

StudentDad wrote: »

There is a distinction between church and state. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. On that basis alone we need marriage equality.

An individual right to believe in a god is fine for them as individual citizens. They are accorded that right in law. The law does not or ought not entitle any religious individual or group of individuals to impose their beliefs on citizens who do not agree with those religious views.

Simply put it has nothing to do with religion. It is a matter of fairness, human rights and equality in law.

SD

I agree with same-sex marriage!