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

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

indy_man

If you get to watch all this are you still 100% sure redefining marriage in our constitution is the correct thing to do? It would be best if you watched it before slamming it, if you don't watch it at all probably best not comment.

Find more posts tagged with

iona lick me gee

Quick Links

Comments

Ave Sodalis

fran17 wrote: »

but the church has virtually remainded neutral on the issue and is not actively campaigning.

I wouldn't consider threatening to leave out the civil part of marriage to be neutral.

Yes all the faiths condemn homosexuality but this is the teaching of the scriptures.

No they don't.

but it should never be used to deflect from the most important issue which always is the welfare of our nations children.This referendum is in one sense the perfect storm for the lgbtq lobby as it involves attempted redefinition of both religious beliefs and the family/parenting of the child.

Except people are under the impression that children's welfare is at stake with this referendum. Which isn't true.
Redefine religious beliefs? If those religious beliefs are outdated, it's time they were redefined. I'm not sure how your family will be affected by this referendum but my own family dynamics aren't going to change. If my brother turns out gay and wants to get married in the future, that's the only change.

seamus

fran17 wrote: »

Daily now in the media,the state controlled media on this issue,there is constant reference to this referendum and the church.

This is because the only group(s) in vocal opposition are strongly religious groups like Iona.
There is nobody else coming out in opposition of SSM. So it's hardly surprising that "discussion" (where you have both sides), ends up coming back to religion.

but the church has virtually remainded neutral on the issue and is not actively campaigning.

You're joking, right?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bishops-threat-over-non-signing-of-civil-wedding-forms-1.2173350

The church isn't directly campaigning because their direct involvement would hurt the "No" campaign, but they are actively campaigning on the ground through proxies like Iona and at a political level by making threats like the above.

The lgbtq movement has always,because of the Bible's teachings,blamed society's non acceptance of homosexuality on the faiths.

It seems like a fair view to hold, considering "the faiths'" opinion of homosexuality.

PopePalpatine

Funnily enough Iona aren't officially campaigning either...because that would require them to divulge their donors.

gandalf

To be honest I really hope that the vote in May is a strong yes one. It will help give the momentum to finally and properly separate the Church from the State. To be married in law you should be obliged to marry in a civil ceremony and if you are religious you can then choose to have a religious service in a church.

Looking at the video that the OP linked to.

Who exactly are the Iona Institute?

How many members are there?

What exactly do they stand for?

I know a lot of Opus Dei people who are linked to them. I also know about heresay that they are supported quite strongly by right wing US religious groups.

The biggest question is where do they get their funding from?

And why have they got charitable status especially if the bulk of their funding comes from outside the state?

What exactly do they do to deserve this status?

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

....The lgbtq movement has always,because of the Bible's teachings,blamed society's non acceptance of homosexuality on the faiths.Yes all the faiths condemn homosexuality but this is the teaching of the scriptures....

Please quote me the bible verse that condemns lesbians. any edition of the bible will do.

floggg

Trudiha wrote: »

I don't think that it's a simple as a dislike of the gays, its about all round social control. One of the ironies of religious fundamentalists is that their own faith never seems quite enough for them. They aren't satisfied with their own worship, religious morals or behaviour; its not enough for them not to get divorced, not to marry a partner of the same sex or not use contraception. They don't just want to be pious Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever, they need to impose those beliefs and customs on those who don't share their faith.

What I'm trying to say is the gays aren't special, it's not just the bum sex they take issue with, women and women's sexuality seems to have been the first and main victim, those not willing or fit enough to churn out babies every year. Those who had the cheek to want financial independance by working for a living. Those who didnt stick to a very ridge sexual line. Those not willing to shut up while they were beaten.

I really don't get it, even if I followed all of the instructions of ISIS or David Quinn or whoever, I have no faith, so I'd just be play acting but I suspect they don't really care about that because their actions are about control not spreading the Good News.

I don't know if it's control per se (or only about control). I think by focusing on thinks like lgbt people it gives them a means to feel more righteous and pious themselves and to ignore their own moral short comings.

If they can point to somebody "worse" than them and dedicate themselves to fighting their supposed wrongs, they can hold themselves out to themselves and others as being righteous and committed to their faith - and ignore all the other ways they fail to live in accordance with their religions commands.

The gays are an easy rally point because they are a minority, and more clearly at odds with the way they try to hold themselves as living. Most of them will never have to struggle with the issue, so it's easy for them to set lgbt people as other and attack them without remorse.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

That question has been asked and wondered by many now,Why is the yes campaign so eager to maintain a link between any issue regarding children and the Church?
Daily now in the media,the state controlled media on this issue,there is constant reference to this referendum and the church.This is completely out of balance,this referendum is in part about redefining marriage,but the church has virtually remainded neutral on the issue and is not actively campaigning.However,this is,and has been the trump card for many years now for the lgbtq movement.Of course they will not acknowledge it publicly but of course also the dogs on the street know this.The lgbtq movement has always,because of the Bible's teachings,blamed society's non acceptance of homosexuality on the faiths.Yes all the faiths condemn homosexuality but this is the teaching of the scriptures.The child abuse scandals in the church,which I want to make clear disgusted me completely and I condemn it unequivocally,has been used without fail in all media outlets,social or otherwise,as the number one response to any issue regarding children where the church has been involved.Many people would say it should be used and they have a valid point but it should never be used to deflect from the most important issue which always is the welfare of our nations children.This referendum is in one sense the perfect storm for the lgbtq lobby as it involves attempted redefinition of both religious beliefs and the family/parenting of the child.

Your ability to get so much wrong in one post astounds me Fran.

I won't get into all the factual inaccuracies, but if this has little to do with religion, how are religious beliefs potentially defined?

floggg

Gintonious wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/iona-institutes-breda-obrien-on-civil-marriage-referendum-i-want-every-child-to-have-a-mary-and-martin-a-mother-and-father-31141712.html

Breda O'Brien weighs in with more absolute tripe on the matter.

The Ionas position on this is morally reprehensible. It is an ant-LGBT movement masquerading as a children's rights organization.

Simply have the balls and courage to say you don't like homosexuals, don't bring children into it to bolster your opinion on the public.

I listened to that interview this morning.

In a way I was always heartened by how desperate she was to reframe the entire debate.

Her comments regarding Mary McAlese were as pathetic as they were desperate, but her absurd attempts to try and create an inflammatory sound bite around the inequality of civil partnerships took the biscuit.

Her latest tactic appears to be to accuse anybody calling for marriage equality as demeaning and devaluing civil partnerships as unequal - as everybody can't see that as a matter of law they are plainly unequal.

Her desperation to make the debate about anything but the facts is heartening because it shows how baseless their position is - but worrying as well because it shows their willingness to knowingly engage in misinformation campaigns and dirty tactics.

lazygal

Breda also opposed civil partnerships when they were introduced. She's a complete hypocrite.

orubiru

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Please quote me the bible verse that condemns lesbians. any edition of the bible will do.

Romans 1: 24 - 27

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

OldNotWIse

It's really hotting up in here....and pre-watershed too!

galljga1

orubiru wrote: »

Romans 1: 24 - 27

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Feeling....very....lustful

ohnonotgmail

orubiru wrote: »

Romans 1: 24 - 27

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing there about women committing shameful acts with other women. Your "proof" is circular. You point to a passage referring to "unnatural" and then claim that this refers to lesbians. You have interpreted that to mean lesbian but it doesnt say that.

Adamantium

Colson Stocky Hornet wrote: »

What never ceases to amaze me is how we collectively as the human race always think of ourselves as the smartest generation to grace God's green earth. We are happy to throw out 1000s of years of conventional wisdom in the name of "progress" and "equality", ideas (in their current understanding) which have only appeared in the last 40 years or so. Does anyone ever stop to think of did our forefathers maybe get it right on some issues? After all, when we abided by their ideas the world just seemed to be that bit less degenerate than what we have today. Just a thought.

I also wonder do people ever think about the inherent nature of homosexual relationships. Homosexual acts are barren i.e cannot produce offspring. Maybe there is also a reason for this? What about the gay subculture. Is that something children should be exposed to? After all, it is our moral duty to protect them.

You also have to examine the nature of homosexuality itself. As far as I'm aware, there is no conclusive study that proves a person is simply "born that way". In the interest of an open debate, perhaps it should be examined if homosexuality is a psychological disorder. For those appealed by such a proposition, may I remind you what is at stake: the well-being of innocent children. Therefore it follows that all such eventualities must be fully explored.

This post of yours will unfortunately get buried. People have a such short view of history, believing it started somewhere around the year 1900. Where are all grandparents and ancestors pig headed thickos, after all our society only exists because of said muck savages? Why did homosexuality not flourish after Ancient Greece and Rome, where are their societies? One answer is that they became decadent, soft and welcoming every minority being pleased and eventually the world/human nature course corrected itself.

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

You'll never hear this stuff being discussed in media.

It reminds me of the newspeak of 1984, only the NOW exists.

Aldous Huxley — 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.'

ohnonotgmail

Adamantium wrote: »

This post of yours will unfortunately get buried. People have a such short view of history, believing it started somewhere around the year 1900. Where are all grandparents and ancestors pig headed thickos, after all our society only exists because of said muck savages? Why did homosexuality not flourish after Ancient Greece and Rome, where are their societies? One answer is that they became decadent, soft and welcoming every minority being pleased and eventually the world/human nature course corrected itself.

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

You'll never hear this stuff being discussed in media.

It reminds me of the newspeak of 1984, only the NOW exists.

Aldous Huxley — 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.'

just so i'm understanding you correctly. You blame homosexuality for the downfall of the greek and roman empires?

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nothing there about women committing shameful acts with other women. Your "proof" is circular. You point to a passage referring to "unnatural" and then claim that this refers to lesbians. You have interpreted that to mean lesbian but it doesnt say that.

Even when your completely found out to be wrong you won't acknowledge it.Have you read the emperors new clothes story by any chance?

Ave Sodalis

fran17 wrote: »

Even when your completely found out to be wrong you won't acknowledge it.Have you read the emperors new clothes story by any chance?

He's not wrong though.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Even when your completely found out to be wrong you won't acknowledge it.Have you read the emperors new clothes story by any chance?

wrong in what way? you consider lesbians to be unnatural. You find a bible verse that refers to unnatural acts. You put 2 and 2 together and get 7. what have i missed?

floggg

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nothing there about women committing shameful acts with other women. Your "proof" is circular. You point to a passage referring to "unnatural" and then claim that this refers to lesbians. You have interpreted that to mean lesbian but it doesnt say that.

It's clearly a prophecy about that magic rabbit vibratory thingy.

PopePalpatine

Adamantium wrote: »

This post of yours will unfortunately get buried. People have a such short view of history, believing it started somewhere around the year 1900. Where are all grandparents and ancestors pig headed thickos, after all our society only exists because of said muck savages? Why did homosexuality not flourish after Ancient Greece and Rome, where are their societies? One answer is that they became decadent, soft and welcoming every minority being pleased and eventually the world/human nature course corrected itself.

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

You'll never hear this stuff being discussed in media.

It reminds me of the newspeak of 1984, only the NOW exists.

Aldous Huxley — 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.'

I think this might be of some use to you.

orubiru

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nothing there about women committing shameful acts with other women. Your "proof" is circular. You point to a passage referring to "unnatural" and then claim that this refers to lesbians. You have interpreted that to mean lesbian but it doesnt say that.

OK.

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

Followed immediately by, "Men committed shameful acts with other men"

So when describing men abandoning "natural relations" the bible is talking about "men with men".

BUT when describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones", well that could mean ANYTHING right?

I mean there is no way they are talking about homosexuality. Definitely not.

Gotta love you Bible apologists.

kunst nugget

Adamantium wrote: »

This post of yours will unfortunately get buried. People have a such short view of history, believing it started somewhere around the year 1900. Where are all grandparents and ancestors pig headed thickos, after all our society only exists because of said muck savages? Why did homosexuality not flourish after Ancient Greece and Rome, where are their societies? One answer is that they became decadent, soft and welcoming every minority being pleased and eventually the world/human nature course corrected itself.

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

You'll never hear this stuff being discussed in media.

It reminds me of the newspeak of 1984, only the NOW exists.

Aldous Huxley — 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.'

Funnily enough, Theodosius I, the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the Roman Empire, denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned. The Roman empire fell apart not long after that.

fran17

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

wrong in what way? you consider lesbians to be unnatural. You find a bible verse that refers to unnatural acts. You put 2 and 2 together and get 7. what have i missed?

Thats a beautiful new robe you have emperor,the colours are amazing....

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Thats a beautiful new robe you have emperor,the colours are amazing....

keep ignoring the reality of your own ignorance. there's a good lad.

shruikan2553

Adamantium wrote: »

This post of yours will unfortunately get buried. People have a such short view of history, believing it started somewhere around the year 1900. Where are all grandparents and ancestors pig headed thickos, after all our society only exists because of said muck savages? Why did homosexuality not flourish after Ancient Greece and Rome, where are their societies? One answer is that they became decadent, soft and welcoming every minority being pleased and eventually the world/human nature course corrected itself.

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

You'll never hear this stuff being discussed in media.

It reminds me of the newspeak of 1984, only the NOW exists.

Aldous Huxley — 'That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.'

Your argument is "it was like this so should be kept like this"

Shall we go back to slavery and marrying children? What about women voting?

fran17 wrote: »

Even when your completely found out to be wrong you won't acknowledge it.Have you read the emperors new clothes story by any chance?

Maybe he can copy you then and just avoid any posts that prove he is wrong.

ohnonotgmail

orubiru wrote: »

OK.

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

Followed immediately by, "Men committed shameful acts with other men"

So when describing men abandoning "natural relations" the bible is talking about "men with men".

BUT when describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones", well that could mean ANYTHING right?

I mean there is no way they are talking about homosexuality. Definitely not.

Gotta love you Bible apologists.

bible apologist? i think you confuse me with somebody else.

galljga1

orubiru wrote: »

OK.

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

Followed immediately by, "Men committed shameful acts with other men"

So when describing men abandoning "natural relations" the bible is talking about "men with men".

BUT when describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones", well that could mean ANYTHING right?

I mean there is no way they are talking about homosexuality. Definitely not.

Gotta love you Bible apologists.

Bible apologists? Would that not be you?

ohnonotgmail

galljga1 wrote: »

Bible apologists? Would that not be you?

in what way am i a bible apologist?

fran17

kunst nugget wrote: »

Funnily enough, Theodosius I, the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the Roman Empire, denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned. The Roman empire fell apart not long after that.

Always preferred Constantine I myself.

Shrap

Adamantium wrote: »

Why was there a massive break in continuity, if homosexuality was not such a problem. After all they surely had bigger problems (barbarian hordes), but they focused on quelling this? Why?

Why? Ask yourself the same question in relation to the subjugation of women until last century. I think you'll find the answer is the same....

Just because the appalling treatment of people (for whatever reason) was customary until recent times, doesn't make it right. Your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.