nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Papa Francis - Same Sex Marriage

K4t

Speaking in the Philippines yesterday:

Francis went into attack mode. "The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage," Francis told the crowd. "These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces, which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation."

http://www.examiner.com/article/pope-francis-gay-marriage-will-destroy-the-family-disfigure-god-s-plan

I see your true colours, And that's why I love you, So don't be afraid to let them show, Your true colours...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Valetta

K4t wrote: »

People are free to vote whichever way they like, for whatever ridiculously idiotic reasons they want, and we are free to label them homophobes and ****stains of society.

Why would you do that?

And whom are "we"?

K4t

Valetta wrote: »

Why would you do that?

And whom are "we"?

Because I believe it to be true. I'll add in ignorant for good measure.

Valetta

K4t wrote: »

Because I believe it to be true. I'll add in ignorant for good measure.

Ah... You've dropped the "we", I see.

padd b1975

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

being told to vote a certain way or you will go to hell is emotional/religious blackmail.

The Pope actually said that??

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Did gay people get to vote for straight marriage ?

There's a reason minority rights shouldn't be voted on by a majority. Alas that's where we stand now.

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

SpaceTime

The thing with same sex marriage though is that it's one of those issues where it's very, very difficult for someone to argue against without being homophobic.

First of all its accepted at this stage that gay people exist, that it absolutely isn't a lifestyle choice anymore than your eye colour, height or skin colour.

So, if you're making an argument that gay people shouldn't be extended the exact same rights as straight people, how exactly do you justify that other than because you 'just don't like homosexuality' or you think it's 'immoral' or you find the idea of two bloke or two women in bed 'offensive/disturbing etc'

Unfortunately, that is a fear or dislike of gay people or homosexuality in general and it's the dictionary definition of homophobia.

Every single argument I've heard against it seems to fundamentally come down to a "it's just not right... Two lads... doing ... ya know.." base argument. That is homophobia.

I don't see it as any different to those "I'm not a racist but black people shouldn't be in the same schools as white people" arguments they had in the United States in the 1950s.

I think there's an attempt (by homophobes) here to redefine "homophobia" as something more akin to violent crime so that they can say "I'm not a homophobe, I just think the gays should remain in the shadows'

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

When did you vote on the bank bailout? Or the right of a heterosexual couple to marry? Or if gay people can adopt?

skooterblue2

padd b1975 wrote: »

The Pope actually said that??

Bendict possibly but not Francis

padd b1975

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

Most likely anything He/she doesn't agree with.

Classic Irish liberalism right there.

mrsbyrne

K4t wrote: »

People are free to vote whichever way they like, for whatever ridiculously idiotic reasons they want, and we are free to label them homophobes and ****stains of society.

You might find plenty of people don't care at all about what "we" (who is we) think of them.

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Most likely anything He/she doesn't agree with.

Classic Irish liberalism right there.

Debate my points. Don't put words in my mouth.

seenitall

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

There is no alternative at this stage, the referendum will go ahead. But an alternative to being a dcik by denying your fellow citizens a right which you as a member of proud majority enjoy as a matter of course, is very much open and it is to vote "yes" to SSM.

K4t

Valetta wrote: »

Ah... You've dropped the "we", I see.

Rational, reasonable thinking people who have a sense of morality untainted by religion or fear of gays.

kneemos

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

It needs a constitutional change,otherwise they would probably just allow it presumably.

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

It needs a constitutional change,otherwise they would probably just allow it presumably.

Its debatable if it does or not. Theres different legal viewpoibts on it.

Daith

kneemos wrote: »

It needs a constitutional change,otherwise they would probably just allow it presumably.

No it doesn't. This is the government playing it safe.

All this talk of democracy. This will be the first time ever that the people of Ireland will decide who can marry.

Dog of Tears

Anyone who votes against extending the same rights to gay people as heterosexual people enjoy, is by definition, a homophobe.

That is an unarguable fact.

padd b1975

Daith wrote: »

Debate my points. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why do you think certain groups (coincidentally, one on the opposite side of the fence to you) should be disenfranchised from voting?

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

And you would respect freedom of speech of someone to offer their opinion on how someone voted?

Well where do we draw the line then? If you accuse someone of voting no because they are a homophobic bigot then can they say that you voted yes because you are s shirt lifting bum boy?is one accusation hate speech and the other not? Who decides who can say what?

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Why do you think certain groups (coincidentally, one on the opposite side of the fence to you) should be disenfranchised from voting?

I never said they should be stopped from voting.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Well where do we draw the line then? If you accuse someone of voting no because they are a homophobic bigot then can they say that you voted yes because you are s shirt lifting bum boy?is one accusation hate speech and the other not? Who decides who can say what?

Religious organisations apparently.

If you believe in freedom of speech then there is no line.

Manach

Shock, Horror, Unbelievable. The Pope upholds Catholic doctrine and traditional communal values. I can seen mass dosages of smelling salts being applied to the PC brigade.

Daith

Manach wrote: »

Shock, Horror, Unbelievable. The Pope upholds Catholic doctrine and traditional communal values. I can seen mass dosages of smelling salts being applied to the PC brigade.

The Catholic Church is the most hypocritical organisation when it comes to upholding traditional values.

padd b1975

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Anyone who votes against extending the same rights to gay people as heterosexual people enjoy, is by definition, a homophobe.

That is an unarguable fact.

You do know lot's of gay people will be voting no?

Kinda blows your theory out of the water doesn't it..

padd b1975

Daith wrote: »

I never said they should be stopped from voting.

Do you think they should, and by extension campaigning?

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

You do know lot's of gay people will be voting no?

Kinda blows your theory out of the water doesn't it..

You know lots of gay people? Are they single? Are they hot?

Dog of Tears

padd b1975 wrote: »

You do know lot's of gay people will be voting no?

Kinda blows your theory out of the water doesn't it..

I'll extend my theory to include 'idiots' so.
We must never forget to allow for the idiots when discussing the people who make up society.

Daith

padd b1975 wrote: »

Do you think they should, and by extension campaigning?

Sure, everyone can and should vote and everyone is allowed to express an opinion and everyone is allowed to express opinions on other people's opinions.

Never said otherwise

K4t

padd b1975 wrote: »

Do you think they should, and by extension campaigning?

Nobody wants them stopped from voting or campaigning.

It will make it all the sweeter when it passes knowing the blood sweat and tears the god botherers will have put into lobbying and campaigning for a no vote in vain. Though they'll see it as having been a just and worthy cause of course.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dog of Tears wrote: »

I'll extend my theory to include 'idiots' so.
We must never forget to allow for the idiots when discussing the people who make up society.

You'll get nowhere in political debate by describing your opponents as idiots, it only serves to further entrench their views and creates hostility. I've been guilty of this myself on many occasions when describing the left. I generalise and mock instead of trying to understand their position and viewpoint.

Appreciate the fact that you live in a country where all voices can be heard.