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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

skooterblue2

padd b1975 wrote: »

The Pope actually said that??

Bendict possibly but not Francis

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?

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'

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?

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??

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.

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: »

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"?

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

That's good. I will be voting yes on the day snd I will defend to the death my neighbours right to think and vote as they damn well please irregardless of how they came to the desicion.

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

mrsbyrne

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ideally we wouldnt have to have a referendum and it could be legislated for. I accept we do though.

That's good. I will be voting yes on the day snd I will defend to the death my neighbours right to think and vote as they damn well please irregardless of how they came to the desicion.

K4t

mrsbyrne wrote: »

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

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.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

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.

padd b1975

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fine, but no need to force their beliefs on others right?

So ban catholics from voting in the referendum on gay marriage?

mrsbyrne

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Voting how.you want to is democracy, being told to vote a certain way or you will go to hell is emotional/religious blackmail.

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

K4t

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think this new Pope is a good PR man. However, don't forget the same conservative, institutionally homophobic organisation hasn't gone away just because it's now got Papa Trendy as the new front man.

Read through this thread and the other Pope Francis one, it's worse, people have settled. They've accepted the church for what is and are torn between viewing Francis as Jackie Healey Rae and a revolutionary.

I am accused of "hate" and having an agenda and such for even starting this thread. They seem to think the church has been reformed and we can move on with our lives. I cannot believe what I am reading. I suppose if support and protection and engagement of paedophilia wasn't enough to finally sway the general public away, nothing ever will be. Depressing.

El_Duderino 09

MistyCheese wrote: »

Ah, okay, so any kind of non-procreative sex is off the table and you're not allowed to get any pleasure out of it. That's lesbians out too then.

Yeah that's my understanding. 2 men or 2 women are precluded because they can't procreate so no sexual act could be considered within the rules. Anything heterosexuals do that is not for procreation using hands, fingers, mouths etc, is equally ruled out.

Catholics should focus on tellingtheir own people what to do and leave the state to run its business. Catholics will be free to not marry a gay

SpaceTime

I think this new Pope is a good PR man. However, don't forget the same conservative, institutionally homophobic organisation hasn't gone away just because it's now got Papa Trendy as the new front man.

His comments about Charlie Hebdo reveal a lot too ; the classic "wife beater defence" - She (France) was asking for it - didn't know when to shut up!

Not at all surprised really. A leopard doesn't change its spots and neither does the Catholic Church.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So what is the point in having a referendum if people are not just allowed to vote as they please? How do uou propose the issue of SSM be sorted?

The same way heterosexual marriage was sorted.

You can vote whatever way you want but you are voting on what a group in Ireland can and cannot do.

Annasopra

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So what is the point in having a referendum if people are not just allowed to vote as they please? How do uou propose the issue of SSM be sorted?

Ideally we wouldnt have to have a referendum and it could be legislated for. I accept we do though.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

How on earth is it a crime ? Why do you want to deny freedom of speech to a body which represents more than 80% of the population according to the last census?

The Church doesn't support freedom of speech