Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in what way am i a bible apologist?

Bible apologists defend the Bible... which is what you're doing...

Shrap wrote: »

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.

if it was good enough for the romans it should be good enough for you.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if it was good enough for the romans it should be good enough for you.

We should all live in caves too. If it was good enough for Neanderthals, it should be good enough for you.

sup_dude wrote: »

Bible apologists defend the Bible... which is what you're doing...

You are definitely confusing me with somebody else. I asked the nay-sayers to point out a bible verse that condemns lesbianism so i could point out the ridiculousness of their position. I'm not defending the bible. Its a fairy tale written down by middle eastern goatherds. Nothing more.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in what way am i a bible apologist?

Well, it clearly condemns homosexuality yet here you are trying to weasel out and say that it doesn't.

You asked for a quote that condemns lesbians and I posted one.

Then you tried to reason your way out of that by saying that the Bible doesn't specifically mention women with women although it is clearly implied in the texts.

Do you deny that the bible condemns homosexual men?

Shrap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if it was good enough for the romans it should be good enough for you.

:pac: I'd have been a terrible slave. One of those "stab the master/mistress while they're sleeping" ones.

sup_dude wrote: »

We should all live in caves too. If it was good enough for Neanderthals, it should be good enough for you.

i dont think my sarcasm is coming across this morning.

Shrap wrote: »

:pac: I'd have been a terrible slave. One of those "stab the master/mistress while they're sleeping" ones.

why wait?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are definitely confusing me with somebody else. I asked the nay-sayers to point out a bible verse that condemns lesbianism so i could point out the ridiculousness of their position. I'm not defending the bible. Its a fairy tale written down by middle eastern goatherds. Nothing more.

Sorry, I seen the "o" at the start of the name

shruikan2553

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, obviously not because reasons that are so obvious I don't have to explain. Which for (more unspecified but definitely obvious reasons) don't apply to the topic we're currently discussing.

I will question your logic and then you will ignore me.

You can then claim you are being silenced.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think my sarcasm is coming across this morning.

No yours is, I don't think mine is though

galljga1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in what way am i a bible apologist?

That was in reply to orubiro.

orubiru wrote: »

Well, it clearly condemns homosexuality yet here you are trying to weasel out and say that it doesn't.

You asked for a quote that condemns lesbians and I posted one.

Then you tried to reason your way out of that by saying that the Bible doesn't specifically mention women with women although it is clearly implied in the texts.

Do you deny that the bible condemns homosexual men?

that isnt what i asked. i asked about lesbians. i dont see anything about women lying with women. Unnatural could refer to anal sex. it could refer to oral sex. And i mean unnatural in the context in which the bible is written. Clearly the bible definition of unnatural has no place in the modern world.

galljga1 wrote: »

That was in reply to orubiro.

apologies. i misread. i thought you had quoted me.

sup_dude wrote: »

No yours is, I don't think mine is though

i think i need new batteries for my sarcasm meter.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are definitely confusing me with somebody else. I asked the nay-sayers to point out a bible verse that condemns lesbianism so i could point out the ridiculousness of their position. I'm not defending the bible. Its a fairy tale written down by middle eastern goatherds. Nothing more.

Oopps.

Um, yes the Bible is a big load of nonsense but it really does condemn lesbianism. I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way.

In any case, I would say it's pretty clear that the "No" side of this whole argument is being driven by religious types and a big part of their reasoning for voting "No" is their religious belief.

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2014/12/03/meaning-marriage/

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think i need new batteries for my sarcasm meter.

We should campaign for a sarcasm font

One eyed Jack

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?

No fran, that's not the question I asked. The question I asked was -

What the hell has civil marriage equality got to do with religion? The answer of course, is nothing. So all the crap I hear using religion, or deriding religion, to further their own agenda, I will ask "WTF has religion got to do with anything?"

This is a civil matter, this has nothing to do with religion. All the crap talk I hear about pedophile priests or how civil marriage will have any impact on religious marriage and all the rest of it, are just bullshít arguments used to appeal to either side and clap each other on the back for how clever they are. This issue shouldn't even be up for debate, it's an embarrassment to this country that we have people who have contributed to society, who are denied the equal protection of that society by a minority who have the power to grant it to them if they actually really wanted to, but instead they choose hide behind religion and claim that as a justification for their insecurity.

I don't think David Quinn hates people who are LGBT, I think he just uses them to further his own ends. I think he likes to set himself up as a martyr because he knows damn well that he can set social media on fire with a single comment, and then claim everyone else is intolerant and hateful and he's the poor victim. Anyone with so much as an ounce of intelligence can see exactly the games he plays, and he does it because he knows he can get away with it. He and his ilk, and I include members of the Hierarchy in that, should have been convicted of inciting hatred in society a long time ago, but the worst part is that would probably turn them into even bigger martyrs.

When it comes to the impact of this referendum on children, it surprises me that the yes campaign are actually shying away from the impact it is going to have on children. It means they're going to grow up in a fairer society for one thing, and when they're adults and they get into relationships, the thought of never being able to marry that person won't even occur to them! It means that children today who identify as LGBT won't have to feel like social rejects or outcasts or hide themselves away from society if we show them that by passing this referendum, children are as much a part of society as adults. If anyone here has ever actually taken the time to listen to children, they speak a hell of a lot more sense than adults do at times!

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

No there isn't, but there should be, to inform people and to help people to understand that this referendum has nothing to do with the church, will not have any impact in any way whatsoever on the church. The only media that controlled by the State is the State Broadcaster that has to give an unrepresentative amount of airtime to a crowd of hate-mongering ego strokers and wind-up merchants. The only State sponsored radio station I can bear to listen to nowadays is Lyric FM, and the only time I switched over to Radio 1 was to listen to Sonics2k presenting a positive perspective from a guy who was raised by two mums! THAT is the kind of positive experience that people WANT to hear, not "Society is going to hell, blah blah fcuking blah", miserable whinging bastards.

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.

Now fran, for once and for all, you're going to have to drop this nonsense about this referendum having anything to do with redefining marriage. Marriage will stay exactly the same - two people's relationship being recognised as a family by the State and that union being protected by the instititution of marriage. That is a civil marriage, which has nothing, nada, zilch, zero, to do with religion. I had a civil marriage wedding myself to my non-religious wife, 20 minutes, in and out, €20 backhander to the solemniser for keeping it short and simple. THAT is what we're talking about here. It won't even redefine religious marriage, because religious solemnisers won't have to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone they don't want to.

You're also either mistaken, or you know you're simply telling porkies when you say that the Church is not actively campaigning against civil marriage equality, because if you actually go to mass like I do, you will have noticed that a couple of weeks ago, the Roman Catholic Church at least, left out pamphlets on "the meaning of marriage" -

Bishops encourage everyone to read The Meaning of Marriage which is currently being distributed to over 1,300 parishes throughout the island.

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.

Apparently it's only yourself so far has tried to mislead the public into thinking that the Church is not actively campaigning against marriage equality. It's ok though, even the dogs on the street are well aware of the Church's stance on the issue of marriage equality. The trump card the RCC Hierarchy has had up to now is that they could play the martyr, but now they're going to have to come out and acknowledge that they far from preaching tolerance, they want to spread intolerance among their followers. I was one of those followers who is in the fortunate position that my parish priest is also a very tolerant guy, so when I told him where he could stick the pamphlet, well, he understands my reasoning.

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.

No it hasn't, and no all faiths do NOT condemn homosexuality, and not even all Catholic Church's condemn homosexuality, and hell even the Pope Frank himself has said in recent times - "Who am I to judge?", because he knows damn well that there are many members of the Roman Catholic Church who are LGBT. Even Mary McAleese, former President of Ireland and a Roman Catholic, has said the Church's stance on the issue of homosexuality is beyond stupid. It's the RCC Hierarchy in Ireland are still floundering about drowning in a sea of denial, but as long as they have politicians in their pockets, they're able to stay afloat (politicians being as full of hot air as some of the Hierarchy).

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.

Well if it's the number one issue within the Church, of course it should be highlighted in all media outlets, social or otherwise as the first response to any issue involving children and the church. The Church has a responsibility towards ALL it's members, and that includes children, and nothing, no excuse should ever give them the right to be allowed to shy away from taking responsibility for the actions of it's Hierarchy, or it's members, who aided and abetted child abuse. The more it's highlighted, the better, because it means that the onus is on the Church to improve it's protection policies of it's most vulnerable members. This means instead of covering up child abuse, it should immediately be reported to the State authorities. The Roman Catholic Church has NO authority to supercede the law of the State.

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.

Ehh, highlighting child abuse within the Church isn't just "a valid point" fran, it's a fcuking necessity, and what is more important than the welfare of our nation's children than protecting them from abuse? Who's fcuking deflecting only people who want child abuse covered up - "Oh poor Church, being held to account for covering up child abuse". Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself if you think anyone is going to overlook abused children and have any sympathy for a system which facilitated the abuse of it's most vulnerable members.

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.

And as I reach conclusion, I have to say, you are talking complete and utter nonsense. Not only have you failed to recognise that many members of the Church itself are LGBT, but they are not attempting to redefine religious beliefs, they are living exactly according to their religious beliefs - tolerance and understanding of every human being on earth, to show kindness and compasssion to every human being. The people who are NOT living by thier religious beliefs, are the people who show no tolerance and understanding, no compassion and kindness, but instead choose to twist religion and use it to preach hatred, mistrust, judgement and belittlement other human beings. THEY are the people who are redefining religious beliefs, and they should be called out on it, but we should not let them distract us from the real issue here which is civil marriage equality. I'll keep saying that until I'm blue in the face from saying it - This referendum has NOTHING to do with religion or religious beliefs.

Nobody is attempting to redefine the family or parenting of children either. People who are LGBT have always been part of society, and they have always been part of our families, and they have always had families and they have always been parents. They just felt they had to hide that part of themselves in order to present an acceptable visage to society. They have been deeply and irrevocably hurt and they have had to live their lives in pain and sufffering so that they could fit in with what they felt was expected of them by society. They already ARE parents, and they were parents, and they will continue to be parents, and the Children and Family Relationships Bill has gone some of the way towards recognising that fact, but it hasn't gone far enough.

This referendum will mean that the fundamental unit of society - the family, will be offered the protection of society, enshrined in the Constitution, given to them by the institution of civil marriage. Every citizen in this country should have that equal opportunity regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or sexual identity. It should be enshrined in the constitution so that it is an opportunity given to children now who will be able to avail of that same right when they reach adulthood. They can't vote now, but this is their future even moreso than it is ours.

When you and I are long dead fran, wouldn't it be a good thing for our children to remember our generation for something we actually did right? I for one don't intend to let them down.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isnt what i asked. i asked about lesbians. i dont see anything about women lying with women. Unnatural could refer to anal sex. it could refer to oral sex. And i mean unnatural in the context in which the bible is written. Clearly the bible definition of unnatural has no place in the modern world.

OK but you have to look at how these verses are written...

"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". I am going to assume that you re not denying that?

BUT when, on the exact same page, describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" you think the bible is probably not referring to lesbians?

You asked for a quote and it was provided, so why move the goalposts?

orubiru wrote: »

OK but you have to look at how these verses are written...

"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". I am going to assume that you re not denying that?

BUT when, on the exact same page, describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" you think the bible is probably not referring to lesbians?

You asked for a quote and it was provided, so why move the goalposts?

And it couldn't be talking about anal sex?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No fran, that's not the question I asked. The question I asked was -

What the hell has civil marriage equality got to do with religion? The answer of course, is nothing. So all the crap I hear using religion, or deriding religion, to further their own agenda, I will ask "WTF has religion got to do with anything?"

This is a civil matter, this has nothing to do with religion.

Are you for real?

Almost every single person I know about who has a strong opinion against same sex marriage is religious and the main reason for their objection is based on their religion. Some of them try to disguise that fact but for the most part their religion is responsible for their view on this subject.

Civil marriage equality itself OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with religion but the reasons why people are being denied civil marriage equality is pretty much all down to religion. You can't see that?

sup_dude wrote: »

And it couldn't be talking about anal sex?

It certainly could and I'd personally be more inclined to believe that they intended "unnatural" to encompass a lot of different things.

I think it takes a fair bit of "manoeuvring" to say that it's not condemning lesbians though.

Which I obviously disagree with, by the way. I think it's a joke that there is even a referendum on same-sex marriage.

Marriage between two adults should be a basic human right and there is no way we should be in a position where the majority are voting on whether or not a minority should be allowed to exercise that right.

OldNotWIse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're completely contradicting yourself. You're effectively saying that previous societies were right to condemn homosexuality and that we shouldn't ignore our ancestors, while openly admitting that homosexuality was common even further back in time. Are we to ignore some parts of our history and embrace others? It's all or nothing, you can't pick and choose like that.

Anti-equalitist in a la carte shocker :P

OldNotWIse

I find it just creepy in general that other people are concerning themselves so much with what couples are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Can I politley request that such people kindly fúck off out of other people's business. I mean, it's just...weird to be concerning yourself with the sex acts of others

Are your own sex lives so lacking? Or are you just perverts?

orubiru wrote: »

OK but you have to look at how these verses are written...

"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". I am going to assume that you re not denying that?

BUT when, on the exact same page, describing woman exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" you think the bible is probably not referring to lesbians?

You asked for a quote and it was provided, so why move the goalposts?

Well there is your problem then. You insist there is only one possible interpretation. There isnt even one definitive text for that verse.

24 Therefore sGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

notice it doesnt say unnatural passions? it says dishonourable.

if the biblicists cant even agree on the text how can you say their is only one interpretation?

floggg

Shrap wrote: »

:pac: I'd have been a terrible slave. One of those "stab the master/mistress while they're sleeping" ones.

That's not very christian of you.

The bible tells you to submit to your master and accept your status.

God likes his slaves obedient - just ask any nun or priest who dares speak out in favour of contraception.

seamus

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're completely contradicting yourself. You're effectively saying that previous societies were right to condemn homosexuality and that we shouldn't ignore our ancestors, while openly admitting that homosexuality was common even further back in time. Are we to ignore some parts of our history and embrace others? It's all or nothing, you can't pick and choose like that.

Everyone knows that society achieved perfection when an assortment of fifth-hand accounts from various sources were cobbled together in the fifth century and appended to a collection of myths from pre-history, ambiguously translated and declared to be the word of God the Bible was written, and has been on a downward spiral since.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I find it just creepy in general that other people are concerning themselves so much with what couples are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Can I politley request that such people kindly fúck off out of other people's business. I mean, it's just...weird to be concerning yourself with the sex acts of others Are your own sex lives so lacking? Or are you just perverts?

maybe they're not getting enough