Pope Francis says same sex civil unions are fine.

440Hertz

breezy1985 wrote: »

Leaving a door open does not excuse a thief. Fine we went ultra catholic after independence but we didn't force them to do all the horrible things they done. Giving someone power does not give them the right to abuse it

I’m not excusing it. I’m just saying there’s a lot of places that are vulnerable to hijack. Even the United States is tripping into that path at the moment, albeit it with a more diverse group of far right religious actors, but with more or else the same effects.

You can see our far right fringes currently trying to hijack the Irish flag a those confused protests that are basically anti everything.

If you don’t have those overarching secular values and don’t understand why they’re important, you’re handing over the keys. It’s as simple as that. There’s always someone out there ready and willing to impose their narrow philosophy.

The fact that we no longer set our moral compass according the utterances of the Vatican is an enormous move forward in terms of Irish independence as we are finally driving our own path and making decisions that suit us as a society and thinking much not, not just falling into line with someone else’s dogmatic beliefs.

J.O. Farmer

breezy1985 wrote: »

The Catholic church is obsessed with sex more so than almost any other organisation in this country. They are desperately concerned with not for people and what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Utterly obsessed with other people's sex lives so ya I call that pervy

Sounds like you have a pervy parish priest. Maybe you could give him a copy of fifty shades of grey so he doesn't have to ask you about your sex life.

breezy1985

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Sounds like you have a pervy parish priest. .

Dont we all

Hotblack Desiato

We all remember when the Irish hierarchy, Iona Institute etc. went nuts about both civil partnerships and equal marriage, even though neither of them has anything whatsoever to do with church marriage and whatever arcane rules they attach to it.

Now their head guy, the pope, says that it's probably okay after all.

Makes them look like absolute bloody eejits. Delicious.

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Maybe if the state had a different word for civil marriage it would make the issue less contentious.

Yeah, like "separate but equal marriage", or "back of the bus marriage", perhaps? :rolleyes:

It's not contentious either, except for the crazies.

J.O. Farmer

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah, like "separate but equal marriage", or "back of the bus marriage", perhaps? :rolleyes:

It's not contentious either, except for the crazies.

I wasn't making a distinction between same sex and heterosexual marriage in a civil sense.

You're a great example of how the more liberal we become as a society the less tolerant of we become. Calling people with views different to your own crazy.

Wanderer78

About time the church grew up

breezy1985

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I wasn't making a distinction between same sex and heterosexual marriage in a civil sense.

You're a great example of how the more liberal we become as a society the less tolerant of we become. Calling people with views different to your own crazy.

Haha less tolerant. J.O. is an apt name for you if you are saying society is now less tolerant than when the church was locking up in married mothers

J.O. Farmer

breezy1985 wrote: »

Haha less tolerant. J.O. is an apt name for you if you are saying society is now less tolerant than when the church was locking up in married mothers

I didn't suggest what happened in the past was right but as we become more tolerant of everything we're less tolerant of anyone disagreeing with them.

These days you can have any view you like just so long as it's woke or you're dismissed as crazy and then people wonder how Trump got elected.

Brexit is another example on a political matter nothing to do with conciense. Brexit supporters were generally portrayed as crazy and didn't know what they were doing. Whether right or wrong they were/ are entitled to their view and to vote accordingly.

For the record many of the things in the history of this country were wrong such as mother and baby homes. I don't think anyone could defend that. Criminalising homosexuality and homosexual acts was also wrong.

breezy1985

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I didn't suggest what happened in the past was right but as we become more tolerant of everything we're less tolerant of anyone disagreeing with them.

These days you can have any view you like just so long as it's woke or you're dismissed as crazy and then people wonder how Trump got elected.

Brexit is another example on a political matter nothing to do with conciense. Brexit supporters were generally portrayed as crazy and didn't know what they were doing. Whether right or wrong they were/ are entitled to their view and to vote accordingly.

For the record many of the things in the history of this country were wrong such as mother and baby homes. I don't think anyone could defend that. Criminalising homosexuality and homosexual acts was also wrong.

How can you become more tolerant of everything while also becoming less tolerant?

How can you now have any view you like but only allowed to have some views?

And who is actually stopping you from having a non "woke" view. Actually stopping not just disagreeing because from what I see here you are freely giving your view.

And Brexiters were entitled to their views and aired them and were allowed to vote accordingly and did. No one stopped them but ya some people thought they were stupid and that's their right and tbh any Brexiter I met living in London had nothing but dumb reasons nothing got to do with reality for voting Brexit so ya I think they were idiots

donaghs

Man with broke phone wrote: »

We should probaly tell religeous leaders to buck off really , all of them.

Encourage personal religon.

Encourage people reading and comprehending things for themselves instead of needing a man in a dress to tell them what it means.

Objective thinking.

I'm not religious. That's a nice idea in theory ignoring religious leaders. But given that most people in the world are religious, it makes sense to also encourage their leaders to more tolerant, and to make their beliefs more personal and less public.

If more Christian leaders don't see homosexuality as being wrong that's a good thing , a small step in the right direction. Further down the spectrum, a 2016 UK poll found half of UK Muslims believed homosexuality should be illegal - if leaders can help being that figure down, that's also a step in the right direction.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I like Pope Frank, but he’s a clever bastard too. He’s saying nothing about the Catholic view of marriage, but rather encouraging Catholic homosexuals and people who are transgender to see civil unions as a way to protect themselves in civil law and exercise their right to have a family.

Essentially, the Church’s position (and his own) on marriage within the Church hasn’t changed, he’s just encouraging civil unions, which he knows no doubt do not carry the same legal protections and rights in most jurisdictions, as marriage.

I don’t think it’s any big change, it’s just the same thing, said differently.

John Paul II labeled homosexuality an “ideology of evil,” saying when discussing gay marriage that, “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and man.”

Thus, in addition to labeling homosexuality as “objectively disordered,” John Paul II also regarded agitating for the right of gays to marry as an “ideology of evil” that threatened the very fabric of society.

Are you seriously saying, this is the same thing?!

Hotblack Desiato

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I wasn't making a distinction between same sex and heterosexual marriage in a civil sense.

So what you want to do is devalue my civil marriage by calling it something else, while church marriages still get to be called marriages.
In the memorable words of Pádraig Judas O'Leprosy, "Let me tell you where you can stick that."

You're a great example of how the more liberal we become as a society the less tolerant of we become. Calling people with views different to your own crazy.

You are trying to make me and other citizens second class citizens, and I'm the intolerant one? Uhuh.

Hotblack Desiato

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Encourage personal religon.

Is that where I take money out of my pocket every week, put it in an envelope, and send it to myself?

Encourage people reading and comprehending things for themselves instead of needing a man in a dress to tell them what it means.

Problem is if you, instead of said man in a dress, continue to refer to a 2000+ year old book of mythology from dozens of authors which defies rational analysis because of its internal contradictions. It also condones murder, genocide, slavery, etc. provided it's the "wrong" sort of people of course.

Objective thinking.

Which means discarding 2000+ year old books of mythology as a basis for contemporary life.

So are you talking about rationalism but calling it a religion? If so, why call it a religion?


Also, obligatory Life of Brian :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ

keano_afc

There really is nothing funnier than uppity atheists getting arsey over things they apparently don't even believe in.

J.O. Farmer

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So what you want to do is devalue my civil marriage by calling it something else, while church marriages still get to be called marriages.
In the memorable words of Pádraig Judas O'Leprosy, "Let me tell you where you can stick that."



You are trying to make me and other citizens second class citizens, and I'm the intolerant one? Uhuh.

Who said anything about devaluing any marriage. All civil marriage is equal in the eyes of the law. It's you who seems to think it's less valuable.

Religious marriage is just that religious. If you get married in the church and don't inform the state and register the marriage in the eyes of the law it didn't happen. Some people put value on religious marriage others don't and that's fair enough.

I didn't call you intolerant but calling people with views opposite to your own crazy is intolerant. You can disagree but disregarding as just crazy is.

ohnonotgmail

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Who said anything about devaluing any marriage. All civil marriage is equal in the eyes of the law. It's you who seems to think it's less valuable.

Religious marriage is just that religious. If you get married in the church and don't inform the state and register the marriage in the eyes of the law it didn't happen. Some people put value on religious marriage others don't and that's fair enough.

I didn't call you intolerant but calling people with views opposite to your own crazy is intolerant. You can disagree but disregarding as just crazy is.

you suggested that civil marriage be called civil union because apparently the catholic church own the word marriage. they don't.

J.O. Farmer

breezy1985 wrote: »

How can you become more tolerant of everything while also becoming less tolerant?

How can you now have any view you like but only allowed to have some views?

And who is actually stopping you from having a non "woke" view. Actually stopping not just disagreeing because from what I see here you are freely giving your view.

And Brexiters were entitled to their views and aired them and were allowed to vote accordingly and did. No one stopped them but ya some people thought they were stupid and that's their right and tbh any Brexiter I met living in London had nothing but dumb reasons nothing got to do with reality for voting Brexit so ya I think they were idiots

Disagreeing with someone is one thing disparaging is another. I disagree with brexiteers but that doesn't mean they're idiots.

Nowadays can you imagine if say a senior politician came out with a non woke view they'd probably have to resign so while you can give a view you'd probably be shouted down or dismissed as a crazy so your opinion doesn't matter.

nthclare

keano_afc wrote: »

There really is nothing funnier than uppity atheists getting arsey over things they apparently don't even believe in.

Be careful Keano these Atheists who are crawling out from their hiding spot are a force to be reckoned with, they're very serious and have a lot of clout on board's.

You'll get infracted fairly quickly if you don't go with their narrative.
I've learned that the hard way.

But they are uppity and arsy that's for sure.
But they are not great on a one to one,they need an audience as they deconstruct thiests beliefs in front of an audience.

I'm an agnostic myself but Im glad I'm not one of the other crowd to be honest, a right bunch of cry babies...

breezy1985

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Disagreeing with someone is one thing disparaging is another. I disagree with brexiteers but that doesn't mean they're idiots.

Nowadays can you imagine if say a senior politician came out with a non woke view they'd probably have to resign so while you can give a view you'd probably be shouted down or dismissed as a crazy so your opinion doesn't matter.

What is a "non woke" view. That could be anything from straight out racism to being anti climate change which the Healy-Raes are and have not had to step down.

Nothing in Irish law forces a TD to step down for being unwoke and people are perfectly welcome to run for an election on an unwoke platform and put it to the electorate. Nothing is stopping them from being unwoke except the fact they probably know that like Renua before them the electorate will reject them.

And I am perfectly within my rights to think a Brexiter is an idiot and a racist and I'm sure they thought similar of people like me who voted remain

keano_afc

nthclare wrote: »

Be careful Keano these Atheists who are crawling out from their hiding spot are a force to be reckoned with, they're very serious and have a lot of clout on board's.

You'll get infracted fairly quickly if you don't go with their narrative.
I've learned that the hard way.

But they are uppity and arsy that's for sure.
But they are not great on a one to one,they need an audience as they deconstruct thiests beliefs in front of an audience.

I'm an agnostic myself but Im glad I'm not one of the other crowd to be honest, a right bunch of cry babies...

They're entertaining, if nothing else. Especially when they criticize people of faith of being intolerant.

nthclare

keano_afc wrote: »

They're entertaining, if nothing else. Especially when they criticize people of faith of being intolerant.

lol they've pushed me off the fence a few times, they're the elites of Board's.

Powerful people those Atheists

J.O. Farmer

breezy1985 wrote: »

What is a "non woke" view. That could be anything from straight out racism to being anti climate change which the Healy-Raes are and have not had to step down.

Nothing in Irish law forces a TD to step down for being unwoke and people are perfectly welcome to run for an election on an unwoke platform and put it to the electorate. Nothing is stopping them from being unwoke except the fact they probably know that like Renua before them the electorate will reject them.

And I am perfectly within my rights to think a Brexiter is an idiot and a racist and I'm sure they thought similar of people like me who voted remain

Nothing in Irish law meant anybody had to resign after golfgate but there were plenty who had to go. The law isn't everything in these things.

Big difference in racism and renua also. Their main problem was they were mostly the same as the 2 big party's anyway they weren't a viable alternative. The PDs failed around the same time and people before profit would have be more or less gone and the greens a few TDs less if Sinn Fein had more candidates in the last election. It's difficult for small parties to succeed regardless.

Go back to the last presidential election. Peter Casey said he wouldn't like a halting site next door and was roundly criticised by a lot of people and the media in particular. He came best of the rest after in a popularity contest (as opposed to a dail election). If Michael D said the same he'd probably have had to resign. I'm not saying he wasn't sincere but if he or any other office holder were to say anything else the calls for them to resign would probably lead to them doing so.

Your entitled to think brexiteers are idiots and they are entitled to think that about you but It was almost 50/50 so I'm sure there were a few intelligent people on both sides too.

Hotblack Desiato

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Who said anything about devaluing any marriage.

You did.
When you said that civil marriage should not be called marriage.

I didn't call you intolerant but calling people with views opposite to your own crazy is intolerant. You can disagree but disregarding as just crazy is.

I stand by my statement. We have 5 years now since we legalised same sex marriages, all the objections the No side had have been shown to be entirely worthless, only religious crazies still oppose it and there is no using logic or reason with those guys.

Hotblack Desiato

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I disagree with brexiteers but that doesn't mean they're idiots.

Unfortunately a substantial proportion of them are idiots.
And the arguments the rest of them use are idiotic and/or demonstrably false.

A lot of people voted leave as a protest (and who can blame them when their ordinary electoral system is so undemocratic?) but didn't actually want the UK to leave - never mind the hardest of hard Brexits which now appears on the cards.

Some true idiots actually thought that voting leave was a "lexit" means of furthering the interests of ordinary working class people - nothing could be further from the truth, but the oligarchs in the Leave campaign were happy to have useful idiots on side.

Nowadays can you imagine if say a senior politician came out with a non woke view they'd probably have to resign

Nobody can make a councillor, TD or senator resign their seat. Now it might make them unelectable, but that's democracy for you.

One eyed Jack

donaghs wrote: »

Are you seriously saying, this is the same thing?!

Yes, I’m saying it’s the same thing, said differently. Essentially, the Catholic Church maintains it’s position on homosexuality and marriage, which is the Pope’s “domain” as it were, while Pope Francis is also advocating that society should permit “civil unions” for people who are gay, and that way, he suggests, they would be “legally covered”. There are a couple of things we can determine from what he’s said -

1. The Catholic Church maintains their positions on marriage and homosexuality and the family, while the media interprets what Pope Francis says as a progressive and positive step.

2. Civil unions are not the same thing as civil marriage and do not confer the same rights and protections in law as civil marriage, and Pope Francis didn’t advocate for marriage equality for Catholics who are homosexual. Essentially they should settle for civil unions. He says he fought for that. He did, in order to block access to civil marriage, which the Catholic Church maintains is between a man and a woman.

3. Pope Francis is doing a Pontius Pilate on it and instead of offering anything which might indicate a change in his own position or the position of the Catholic Church (his commentary is in regard to Civil Law, not Canon Law), he distracts from any responsibility the Catholic Church has towards members of it’s congregation who are homosexual, and makes it appear as though the Catholic Church or his own position aren’t the issue.

Essentially he invokes the same “hands-off”, “who am I to judge?” effort that he did when he was previously asked about the position of the Catholic Church in relation to homosexuals and homosexuality. He quite clearly is in a position where he could have done something to demonstrate that the Catholic Church regards all people as deserving of equal dignity and respect on the basis of their humanity, but he doesn’t even go near that, because that would involve having acknowledge that Catholics who are homosexual deserve to be regarded with the same dignity and respect as Catholics who are not homosexual.

He still regards homosexuals as people to be pitied, and says they should have a right to be part of a family and the right to be family, but they’re not the Catholic Church’s problem. His idea of the Family is the same as that of the Catholic Church, same as it always has been -


Pope Francis says gay couples cannot be considered 'families'


He’s considered progressive for sitting on the fence? He could rewrite Canon Law if he wanted, JP did in 1983, and that would be a progressive step forward. But simply reiterating the position of the Catholic Church while making it appear as though he personally is supportive of marriage equality? That’s just PR spin.

Hotblack Desiato

keano_afc wrote: »

There really is nothing funnier than uppity atheists getting arsey over things they apparently don't even believe in.

What do they not believe in? That the Roman Catholic Church exists? That the pope exists? :rolleyes:

Atheists (in general) along with a lot of other people think that institutionalised homophobia is one of the many damaging and wrong practices of that church, and are perfectly entitled to speak out against these practices.

timeToLive

Is it illegal to insult the catholic pope Francis?

Donald Trump

eviltwin wrote: »

Not expecting anything DT. They have their views on homosexuality and probably will never change them. My point is more to do with all the people saying it’s wonderful and amazing etc. It’s not. What exactly has changed as a result of this? Nothing.

Well there is a spectrum is there not? From your average common person who accepts things as reasonable/normal and tries to be kind all the way to the bigoted person who thinks that gay people should be ostracized or targetted and uses "church teachings" as justification of their biases.


The Pope saying something like this suddenly takes the oxygen away from those extreme ones. No? Don't forget that things are relatively a lot worse in other countries and his comments would be far more radical in those places!

Donald Trump

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which means discarding 2000+ year old books of mythology as a basis for contemporary life.

I am curious to know what would be your cutoff where books and ideas become irrelevant for today



1950's
1900's
1800's
1700's



etc. You realise that people weren't less intelligent back then. They might not have had google or the same opportunity for mass education but they were not Neanderthals.

Cluedo Monopoly

Wanderer78 wrote: »

About time the church grew up

It about time the people that finance their nonsense grew up.

eviltwin

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well there is a spectrum is there not? From your average common person who accepts things as reasonable/normal and tries to be kind all the way to the bigoted person who thinks that gay people should be ostracized or targetted and uses "church teachings" as justification of their biases.


The Pope saying something like this suddenly takes the oxygen away from those extreme ones. No? Don't forget that things are relatively a lot worse in other countries and his comments would be far more radical in those places!

Look, if it gives someone comfort or makes them feel better then its great. I know of people who are gay who are also religious and they feel hurt by attitudes expressed in the past, perhaps this will give them some peace I don't know.

Personally I find it all a bit strange that his comments have gotten such attention in the first place. Most Catholics I know ignore church teaching on moral issues anyway so it won't make a difference. If anything, the idea that this is hugely progressive shows just how much we've moved on as a country and that is something to be proud of.