Archbishop of Dublin on the gay couple referendum

xrp

I thought Archbishop Martin's recent comments were clear, concise and to the point. The timing was good too - he just dipped in, said his piece and left it at that. The next couple of weeks will be for the die-hard hacks. The church having to review its role in signing state paperwork and that the church may have no choice but to offload all this paperwork to the HSE was spot on - no hysteria, just facts and reason.

If a la carte Irish people (many of whom are quite happy to avail of all the benefits they inherited from the church) vote according to what's fashionable (as opposed to what is right), I think he's pragmatic enough to know that there's not much he can do. If the people vote NO, it might give us all a glimmer of hope that the damage inflicted on Irish society over the last 20 years might change for the better. If YES does go through, I will see it as just an encapsulation the damage.

Let's hope and pray that the people of Ireland do the right thing.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

I thought Archbishop Martin's recent comments were clear, concise and to the point. The timing was good too - he just dipped in, said his piece and left it at that. The next couple of weeks will be for the die-hard hacks. The church having to review its role in signing state paperwork and that the church may have no choice but to offload all this paperwork to the HSE was spot on - no hysteria, just facts and reason.

If a la carte Irish people (many of whom are quite happy to avail of all the benefits they inherited from the church) vote according to what's fashionable (as opposed to what is right), I think he's pragmatic enough to know that there's not much he can do. If the people vote NO, it might give us all a glimmer of hope that the damage inflicted on Irish society over the last 20 years might change for the better. If YES does go through, I will see it as just an encapsulation the damage.

Let's hope and pray that the people of Ireland do the right thing.

What damage is this? How is giving people more rights in any way damaging?

Manach

As in other countries which have been allowed to vote in the matter of redefinition of marriage, it is always an aid to have an input from a variety of sources and not accept the apparent perception of prevailing wisdom one way or the other on an issue.

Frank Bullitt

Manach wrote: »

As in other countries which have been allowed to vote in the matter of redefinition of marriage, it is always an aid to have an input from a variety of sources and not accept the apparent perception of prevailing wisdom one way or the other on an issue.

I don't think I follow on this.

Are you saying that its a good or a bad thing that Ireland is voting on this?

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

What damage is this? How is giving people more rights in any way damaging?

Here's three or four examples of socially destructive behaviours rampant in New Ireland:
- working mothers doing 40/50/60 hour weeks and commuting 2/3 hours a day with their kids put into what are effectively day orphanages
- soaring abortion rates
- aging mothers who 20 years ago would be told to "hurry up" are now sold IVF on eazy-payment plans
- addiction (drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex), mass welfare dependance, low quality "education", homelessness
- low quality men everywhere who are more interested in porn, prostitutes and drinking than finding a nice girl

And I don't believe I'm looking back through emerald tinted glasses. There was a time where the ordinary working man could buy his own two-up, two-down and have his weekends in peace at home with his family.

And now we want to add gay blessings from the HSE into the mix and (in future) permit gays to adopt innocent children. What's after that?

Manach

It would at least be better than in some states were it was decided by Judicial means or else decided by legislative/executive action. That way at least some pretence of debate has to made instead of to really on cliched argument of interest groups.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Here's three or four examples of socially destructive behaviours rampant in New Ireland:
- working mothers doing 40/50/60 hour weeks and commuting 2/3 hours a day with their kids put into what are effectively day orphanages
- soaring abortion rates
- aging mothers who 20 years ago would be told to "hurry up" are now sold IVF on eazy-payment plans
- addiction (drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex), mass welfare dependance, low quality "education", homelessness
- low quality men everywhere who are more interested in porn, prostitutes and drinking than finding a nice girl

And I don't believe I'm looking back through emerald tinted glasses. There was a time where the ordinary working man could buy his own two-up, two-down and have his weekends in peace at home with his family.

And now we want to add gay blessings from the HSE into the mix and (in future) permit gays to adopt innocent children. What's after that?

And I presume you have statistics to back all of this up, right?

And what has that got to do with giving homosexuals the right to marry, and how will that somehow damage Ireland?

Frank Bullitt

Manach wrote: »

It would at least be better than in some states were it was decided by Judicial means or else decided by legislative/executive action. That way at least some pretence of debate has to made instead of to really on cliched argument of interest groups.

Debate on giving people more rights, to be on an equal grounds with other citizens should be a simple and easy matter.

It gets complicated when certain groups bring in red herring arguments about the welfare of children from this vote.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

And I presume you have statistics to back all of this up, right?

And what has that got to do with giving homosexuals the right to marry, and how will that somehow damage Ireland?

Well, I'm not a sociologist (never claimed to be), but from what I see of the way the aged and aging youth live today; it ain't pretty. But I'm just an old todger, so what do I know? The abortion stats are pretty obvious. As is the age of aging mothers (I think the average age is 32 now). Drugs and drink are rampant in Dublin city centre (anecdote alert) which is far from an outrageous observation. And today's baby boomer men (born in the 80s) aren't exactly too keen on walking up the isle - why? I'll leave that one for the sociologists, though I suspect the question will be answered by historians looking back at how it all went wrong than by today's university sociology "experts" (who, in my view, have a lot to answer for).

Anyway, voting NO is about putting a stop to the mindless insanity of what is called "progress" as espoused by people who refer to themselves as "progressives".

And I don't see what else a HSE blessing gives two gay men (but not three/four) over civil partnership. Can you answer me that? Can you tell me what else gays get from a HSE blessing over civil partnership?

Manach

Ah the cliches are already getting trotted out. Wonderful.
The most major re-definition of one of the main building blocks of society is being undertaken. But lets not pay any attention to auxillary fall-outs or how this will impact wider society. Keep on message on the whole equality concept which actually is sparse enough if one even cared to look at the political history of the Irish state. But as an empty political slogan, right up the progressives approved good-think.
So what new planned re-definitions of society are next, what great leap forward what next for year zero or has the central committe let you in on that yet?

WallyGUFC

I find it truly amazing that you think society has gone backwards in the past 20 years. Your posts indicate a desire to return to 1960s or 1970s Ireland. Complete madness imo.

xrp

Manach wrote: »

Ah the cliches are already getting trotted out. Wonderful.
The most major re-definition of one of the main building blocks of society is being undertaken. But lets not pay any attention to auxillary fall-outs or how this will impact wider society. Keep on message on the whole equality concept which actually is sparse enough if one even cared to look at the political history of the Irish state. But as an empty political slogan, right up the progressives approved good-think.
So what new planned re-definitions of society are next, what great leap forward what next for year zero or has the central committe let you in on that yet?

All the Archbishop said was that the church will be seriously reconsidering participating in the state's desire to keep records of unions between two people. I think he was trying to get his flock to think for themselves and realise that going along with fashionable opinions in the Dublin-centric, metropolitan media is not in keeping with Church teaching on the nature of love, marriage and the family. In my view, anyone who doesn't understand this needs to take a long hard look at themselves before swanning up for Holy Communion. His words were very clear, expressive and precise and the media didn't have much to latch on to because what he said was 100% true - it's very hard to deny truth. However it's easy to hype up lies.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Well, I'm not a sociologist (never claimed to be), but from what I see of the way the aged and aging youth live today; it ain't pretty. But I'm just an old todger, so what do I know? The abortion stats are pretty obvious. As is the age of aging mothers (I think the average age is 32 now). Drugs and drink are rampant in Dublin city centre (anecdote alert) which is far from an outrageous observation. And today's baby boomer men (born in the 80s) aren't exactly too keen on walking up the isle - why? I'll leave that one for the sociologists, though I suspect the question will be answered by historians looking back at how it all went wrong than by today's university sociology "experts" (who, in my view, have a lot to answer for).

Anyway, voting NO is about putting a stop to the mindless insanity of what is called "progress" as espoused by people who refer to themselves as "progressives".

And I don't see what else a HSE blessing gives two gay men (but not three/four) over civil partnership. Can you answer me that? Can you tell me what else gays get from a HSE blessing over civil partnership?

Abortion stats don't give full details on the the reasons for the abortion, weather it was medical or personal.

What exactly is your issue with women having babies later in life? I am failing to see a valid point with this.

Drink and drugs have always been an issue and will always be in a populated city, drinking alcohol has a close relation with Irish tradition, so dumping that on the "Yes" side is a simple fallacy and straw man.

And again, I am lost on your baby boomer remark.

You seem to have a very anti-secular stance in your statements, and resent any kind of progress for other parts of society, which this referendum is focused on. You saying that voting "No" to this will stop the progress being made, it would merely hinder Irish society advancing like it has and opening its culture away from the RCC, which has done nothing but try and control the lives of ordinary decent people.

What homosexuals (not "gays" as you put it) get is recognition, because homosexuality isn't some form of fashion accessory, it is a form of love, and for that it deserves our respect.

somefeen

I suppose you consider the legalisation of divorce to be a step backwards aswell?

Frank Bullitt

Manach wrote: »

Ah the cliches are already getting trotted out. Wonderful.
The most major re-definition of one of the main building blocks of society is being undertaken. But lets not pay any attention to auxillary fall-outs or how this will impact wider society. Keep on message on the whole equality concept which actually is sparse enough if one even cared to look at the political history of the Irish state. But as an empty political slogan, right up the progressives approved good-think.
So what new planned re-definitions of society are next, what great leap forward what next for year zero or has the central committe let you in on that yet?

The impact on wider society? This is something I have noticed the No side seem to say, and try and implicate that a Yes vote with make society decide in anarchy. Its not reinventing the wheel, it is letting 2 people marry and to be recognized.

Simple as.

xrp

WallyGUFC wrote: »

I find it truly amazing that you think society has gone backwards in the past 20 years. Your posts indicate a desire to return to 1960s or 1970s Ireland. Complete madness imo.

Ireland was sovereign then (we still are, sorta). A much greater proportion of the population was also sovereign then (i.e. not dependent on welfare and could retire independently).

Just because the clock goes forward does not guarantee progress. That's quite an assumption that. Some aspects of 1960s/1970s (as you say) Irish society were good and some were bad. Does what we have (or think we have) today outweigh the social chaos? I don't know - the historians will tell us that.

catchup

As a matter of interest, does anyone know how the Catholic Church has responded when SSM was legislated for in other countries,eg Spain? Would it be a similar position to here where the priest is also the civil marriage solemniser and the civil marriage registration follows the church marriage?

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Ireland was sovereign then (we still are, sorta). A much greater proportion of the population was also sovereign then (i.e. not dependent on welfare and could retire independently).

Just because the clock goes forward does not guarantee progress. That's quite an assumption that. Some aspects of 1960s/1970s (as you say) Irish society were good and some were bad. Does what we have (or think we have) today outweigh the social chaos? I don't know - the historians will tell us that.

No matter what way you look at it, Ireland is far better than it ever was in the 60's or 70's.

Laughable statement.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

What homosexuals (not "gays" as you put it) get is recognition, because homosexuality isn't some form of fashion accessory, it is a form of love, and for that it deserves our respect.

"Recognition"??? The word recognition doesn't even appear in the text. The word "love" doesn't appear in the text. You can't force people to "respect" HSE blessings.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it, Ireland is far better than it ever was in the 60's or 70's.

Laughable statement.

I don't remember introducing the 1960s or the 1970s to this discussion. I hope everything works out for you in the end. All I would say is don't depend too much on The State to provide for you.

catchup

The word "blessing" doesn't appear anywhere, do it?

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

"Recognition"??? The word recognition doesn't even appear in the text. The word "love" doesn't appear in the text. You can't force people to "respect" HSE blessings.

The vote will decide weather to add to the Constitution that "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex", what have you got against that, thats recognition from the law of Ireland.

And do you think that 2 homosexuals marrying somehow don't love each other? of course love comes into the fray.

shruikan2553

It's an empty threat. They wouldn't be stupid enough to force everyone through the HSE. It risks people not bothering with the church part as it's unnecessary.

xrp

catchup wrote: »

The word "blessing" doesn't appear anywhere, do it?

Marriages ought to be blessed. If marriages aren't blessed, it's not a marriage AFAIC. That's why I'm voting NO. I don't recognise sham marriages and I won't be bullied into voting against my conscience.

A marriage in a HSE centre (replete with all the trappings of appropriated Christian traditions) is as good as a marriage in Las Vegas (though at least in Las Vegas you might at least enjoy yourself).

somefeen

Manach wrote: »

Ah the cliches are already getting trotted out. Wonderful.
The most major re-definition of one of the main building blocks of society is being undertaken. But lets not pay any attention to auxillary fall-outs or how this will impact wider society. Keep on message on the whole equality concept which actually is sparse enough if one even cared to look at the political history of the Irish state. But as an empty political slogan, right up the progressives approved good-think.
So what new planned re-definitions of society are next, what great leap forward what next for year zero or has the central committe let you in on that yet?

Cliches? Seems the no side is relying on one simple statement for its entire argument.
"Because god says so"

When we recognise marriage between any two people of any gender we will be recognising their love (a gift from god) in law as equal to that of a man and a woman.

Please explain what happens after that and how that causes all of society to implode?

efb

The Gay Couple Referendum??? when is that?
The Marriage Equality one is May 22

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

I don't remember introducing the 1960s or the 1970s to this discussion. I hope everything works out for you in the end. All I would say is don't depend too much on The State to provide for you.

For me? Assuming that I am homosexual then, nice.

I am a straight man, and why I hope for a yes is for my country to recognize the marriage of 2 people, man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. Is that clear for you? You don't have to be gay to want this, you just have to be a human.

I don't need the state to provide for me, I have zero idea what you are talking about. And I suspect this is because you are running out of things that make sense to say.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

The vote will decide weather to add to the Constitution that "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex", what have you got against that, thats recognition from the law of Ireland.

And do you think that 2 homosexuals marrying somehow don't love each other? of course love comes into the fray.

Only two? I thought today's homosexuals would be a lot more sexually adventurous than just one hole.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Marriages ought to be blessed. If marriages aren't blessed, it's not a marriage AFAIC. That's why I'm voting NO. I don't recognise sham marriages and I won't be bullied into voting against my conscience.

A marriage in a HSE centre (replete with all the trappings of appropriated Christian traditions) is as good as a marriage in Las Vegas (though at least in Las Vegas you might at least enjoy yourself).

Ought to be, but isn't required to.

Marriage pre-dates christianity, so any stance that it makes on this is unfounded.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Only two? I thought today's homosexuals would be a lot more sexually adventurous than just one hole.

And here we have it folks, the bigotry and anti-gay stance finally shows its face.

You took your time.

WallyGUFC

Ireland is a far better place now and a lot of it is down to education. Education has enabled the population to realise that the Catholic Church was holding the country back. I'm 21 but it's amazing to think that just a few years before I was born, contraception for example was illegal. As was actually being homosexual. What a ludicrous society that must have been, completely unjust and unfair and pushed on people (in the most part) by the Catholic Church.

Of course the big irony in this is that primary schools in this country are still mainly run by the Church but thankfully that is changing, albeit slowly. The Catholic Church is just hurting because it is no longer the powerful organisation that it was not so long ago and it's influence is diminishing all the time. When it comes to topics like this referendum, its views are terribly backward and usually belong to a different millennium. I find it extraordinary that in 2015 Ireland, there are people who share a desire to stand in the way of progression and equality.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

Ought to be, but isn't required to.

Marriage pre-dates christianity, so any stance that it makes on this is unfounded.

Thank you for that. I don't recall any examples of man-on-man/woman-on-woman couples/triples/whatever-you're-having-yourself-ls integrating into fruitful societies throughout history. Must be a new thing.

catchup

xrp wrote: »

Marriages ought to be blessed. If marriages aren't blessed, it's not a marriage AFAIC. That's why I'm voting NO. I don't recognise sham marriages and I won't be bullied into voting against my conscience.

A marriage in a HSE centre (replete with all the trappings of appropriated Christian traditions) is as good as a marriage in Las Vegas (though at least in Las Vegas you might at least enjoy yourself).

I am an atheist. How do I get married?

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Thank you for that. I don't recall any examples of man-on-man/woman-on-woman couples/triples/whatever-you're-having-yourself-ls integrating into fruitful societies throughout history. Must be a new thing.

Give yourself some time to read up on greek society and the stuff the Romans got up to. You might learn something.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

And here we have it folks, the bigotry and anti-gay stance finally shows its face.

You took your time.

I think the mechanics is the kernel of the issue.

Every time it's brought up, "bigot" gets thrown. Why can't you have a mature conversation about the fundamental essence of homosexuality? Afraid of something?

shruikan2553

xrp wrote: »

I think the mechanics is the kernel of the issue.

Every time it's brought up, "bigot" gets thrown. Why can't you have a mature conversation about the fundamental essence of homosexuality? Afraid of something?

Probably the "mature conversation" like

xrp wrote: »

Only two? I thought today's homosexuals would be a lot more sexually adventurous than just one hole.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

Give yourself some time to read up on greek society and the stuff the Romans got up to. You might learn something.

Oh really? Homosexuality was only ever a decadent and anomolous behaviour in such societies. Certainly nobody of any historical significance lived at home with his/her partner and reared kids (or had surrogate kids or adopted kids or whatever).

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

I think the mechanics is the kernel of the issue.

Every time it's brought up, "bigot" gets thrown. Why can't you have a mature conversation about the fundamental essence of homosexuality? Afraid of something?

Keep going my friend, you are doing the "No" side a service here.

You mentioning a mature conversation is really big considering your frankly disgusting comments earlier in this thread.

Stark

Just look at how far those liberals have dragged society down from the glory days of the 1970s. Just say no to giving people rights folks.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131.html

Annasopra

xrp wrote: »

I think the mechanics is the kernel of the issue.

Every time it's brought up, "bigot" gets thrown. Why can't you have a mature conversation about the fundamental essence of homosexuality? Afraid of something?

Only two? I thought today's homosexuals would be a lot more sexually adventurous than just one hole.

I dont know why you expect a mature discussion when you post bigoted immature statements like the above.

xrp

catchup wrote: »

I am an atheist. How do I get married?

I have no idea? Have you tried your TDs office on a Saturday morning? I hope you find what you're looking for.

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Oh really? Homosexuality was only ever a decadent and anomolous behaviour. Certainly nobody of any historical significance lived at home with his/her partner and reared kids (or had surrogate kids or adopted kids or whatever).

Was it really? You have proof of this?

I am not saying that heterosexual marriage is somehow lower than homosexual marriage, but your now very open dislike of LGBT people is prime example of what has hindered Irish society for so long.

xrp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont know why you expect a mature discussion when you post bigoted immature statements like the above.

Actually, if anyone wants to discuss/explain the motivation behind engaging in such mechanics, I'm all ears.

xrp

Gintonious wrote: »

Was it really? You have proof of this?

I am not saying that heterosexual marriage is somehow lower than homosexual marriage, but your now very open dislike of LGBT people is prime example of what has hindered Irish society for so long.

I'm not a historian, but I can't think of anyone of any historical significance, no. Sorry. I have visted Rome though. Beautiful city. The cultural and historical richness is off the richter scale.

Ave Sodalis

Wow OP, your posts are even more crazy here than they are in AH...

WeHaveToGoBack

OP is a troll, aren't they?

Frank Bullitt

xrp wrote: »

Actually, if anyone wants to discuss/explain the motivation behind engaging in such mechanics, I'm all ears.

Engaging in what mechanic? I am going to assume you mean sex.

Because straight people can't do the things that gay people do...no no, that can't happen.

Ave Sodalis

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Assuming he isn't a troll, which I very much doubt, he probably thinks he'll have a more receptive audience here. I very much doubt that as well.

Fran in disguise He probably does but crazy posts are crazy, whether they're in Christianity, AH, or fishing...

Frank Bullitt

If indeed they are a troll, then it was a good one.

If not, I wouldn't be surprised at all, but also I hope Yes gets the vote even more.

shruikan2553

Well he's gone now. I wonder will we be getting a new user who will just happen to side with the OP

Frank Bullitt

Probably off saying his prayers before bed.