floggg wrote: » Your mistake is thinking Fran acknowledges the existence of anything which disagrees with his chosen workd view.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh I know, but when that Creator Fran claims to believes so much in has ol Fran by the pearly gates and questions him about his level of adherence to the 10 Commandments these comments will be available to the celestial prosecution.
floggg wrote: » Second mistake: think even Fran believes the nonsense he comes out with.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The funny thing is, that if I were to count among people I've met who identify as religious/non-religious, which demographic would be more supportive of LGBT people, people who are religious come out on top by a vast margin. That's why I said that people who are non-religious aren't just non-religious, but they are anti-religion and anti-LGBT, anti-disability, anti-unemployed, anti-unmarried parents... anti- well, anti lots of things really. Thankfully, they are in a small minority when you extrapolate out these views to a wider society.
orubiru wrote: » I wonder how many people share your view? I didn't realize that religious people were actually the most supportive of LGBT people. I always assumed that the church in Ireland had a negative view on that subject. Thanks for correcting me on that.
floggg wrote: » I don't think he's saying it as a general rule - just in his experience. I know personally my mother (while by no means in love with RCC hierarchy) is one of the the most religious people I know - and yet has always been a fierce supporter of lgbt rights (and long before she knew she had a gay son). I also have a relative who is a priest will be happily attending my gay wedding and has been nothing but supportive of me. That doesn't mean religious people are all lgbt allies, but it does mean that you can't say all religious people are anti-gay.
fran17 wrote: » The lgbtq movement has always,because of the Bible's teachings,blamed society's non acceptance of homosexuality on the faiths.
Muslim, Quaker, and Christian groups have called for a “conscience clause” to be included in the marriage equality referendum which would allow people to ignore gay marriage rights in certain circumstances.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » yes, but if a religious person is an lgbt ally then it is in spite of their religion. it is not because of their religion. the same cannot be said for religious types who are anti-lgbt.
floggg wrote: » No, it just means their religious views are different to the mainstream. I'm not trying to defend religion, because I am a firm atheist, but I know that for my mother her God is a God of love and compassion. she cannot fathom how God would do anything but rejoice in my happy relationship. The idea of a God who made me as I am only to deny me happiness is absurd. So her supprt of lgbt people is entirely compatible with her religious beliefs. It may not be compatible with the edicts of the pope, but she doesn't pray to the pope and considers him to be just a man. She only listens to him when she thinks he's saying something that makes sense.
Zen65 wrote: » Really the only conclusion I can draw is that he is either foolish, or so bigoted that he can convince himself that these flawed arguments are valid, or that he is simply trying to ensure by any means to persuade people not to vote in a manner which takes the country's laws one step further away from the teachings of the deranged Book of Leviticus.
eviltwin wrote: » Your mother sounds like a true Christian. I know a few who despite their churches are very much in favour of SSM. But they are odds with their faith which tells them SSM is wrong. And she is probably biased because of her relationship to you. There is a gay person in my family but I still have family who will vote No because the church is against it.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » You missed one possibility: This is David Quinn's job. He hasn't arrived at his position through logical argument. Like a schoolkid in a debating competition, he's been handed the No side, and must come up with arguments, any arguments he can. But since the arguments are made up after the fact to try and support the conclusion, you can't assume that even David Quinn thinks they are good arguments, just that they are the best he can turn in for his pay cheque.
floggg wrote: » That's the thing - she's not at odds with HER faith at all. Her faith is about love and compassion. She believes in the jesus who preached love thy neighbour, not the Jewish goat herders who wanted to stone rape victims. It might be at odds with what the pope or other religious believers might preach, but she doesn't really care. They have nothing to do with her relationship with her God. And in fairness to her, she was always like that - long before she ever knew I was gay. While she's far from perfect, she's always been a very compassionate and loving person.
floggg wrote: » They have no desire to win on the merits - they just want to win. If they can't win the conversation they will change it.
Bad Horse wrote: » That's what annoys me about the current petition to have Iona's charity status removed.
Benny_Cake wrote: » A pointless exercise. The Iona Institute would only be to happy to turn this into a debate about freedom of expression and seeking to revoke their charitable status would play directly into their hands.
Bridge93 wrote: » Sure didn't Jesus himself have two dads. What more do you need to get Catholics to support SSM. Blind hypocrisy I tell ya!!
seenitall wrote: » Further up-thread there was a mention of why Irish politicians don't implement fair, progressive changes when given opportunities to do so. My opinion is that the answer is twofold: a) yes, they are mostly cowardly, and too self-interested to step out of line of (what they think is) the prevailing electorate opinion b) because so many (by which I mean the majority of) Irish people identify as Catholics on that all-important census thingy, while holding beliefs and opinions, not to mention living their actual lives in ways, that completely fly in the face of the religious dogma of that faith The two points above are interconnected and together produce the unfortunate effect of every positive, progressive social advancement in this country's having to be fought for as hard, as long and as bloody as if it is being fought for in the trenches, not a 21-Century Western European society. The RCC is not just a religion, it is a vast, powerful, monolithic type instrument of mind-control in the world, resting on a billion or so people's deference and indoctrination. It has a rather immovable set of values, principles, beliefs attached to it. Homosexuality is a sin. It is bad, it is wrong, and it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a word marriage, let alone anything else. Sex outside (Catholic )marriage - bad, wrong, sin. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Very, very ashemed of yourselves. Repent, pray to the man in the sky and be back next week for more of the same, and fill our coffers while you're at it. What I get so impatient about with a la carte Catholics, is that they can't see, or refuse to see, that however loving, and caring, and inclusive, and accepting they as individual people are, by declaring themselves as Catholics on that paper, they are still signing off on bigotry, on intolerance, on trampling of human rights. They are giving mandate to make decisions to cowardly politicians who, going by census figures, won't put their heads anywhere near the parapet in the name of fairness or equality, will never challenge the status quo as long as they can avoid it. Who will follow the RCC's intolerant views on minorities, or women's reproductive rights, to the bitter end. And frankly, if you have a look and see that 80+ percent of people in the country identify as RCC, you would be almost unwise as a politician not to take that very seriously on board, cowardly or not. Your mother is a religious woman, and as her God is the God of acceptance and love, I couldn't be happier for her. But I am so, so frustrated with the fact that your mother, and so so soooo many Irish people believe themselves to be Catholic. If they are for fairness, for equality, if they abhor bigotry and exclusion, then they don't uphold the church values - how are they Catholic?? Let's say a person eats meat. But he calls himself vegetarian. For no other reason than that he was brought up as a vegetarian, and although he merrily eats meat now, every day and twice on a Sunday, it is inconceivable for him to try and change the label that he has always previously gone by. Inconceivable for him, eye-gougingly frustrating to witness for me. Because it is that very label, and what the label represents in policy terms, that is holding up social progress. I love Ireland. I was just thinking the other day, I wouldn't live anywhere else if I had a chance. Ireland is a lovely little country that is moving in the direction that I like, truly. I just wish it could be doing that in a teeny tiny bit less p-a-i-n-s-t-a-k-i-n-g-l-y s-l-o-w manner.
Genghiz Cohen wrote: » David Quinn, most slappable face in Ireland?
fran17 wrote: » This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » You missed one possibility: This is David Quinn's job.
seenitall wrote: » @ floggg: fair points bout lobbies etc, thanks. I didn't mean to disparage your mother in any way, and hopefully I haven't come across like that. But we will have to disagree that it is completely the politicians' fault that they misrepresent her (and other people's like her) views. Politicians aren't mind-readers either. If someone (or a very big number of someones, as in most of Irish people) identifies with an organisation that promotes certain principles, anyone could be well forgiven for taking for granted that they are on comfortable terms with those principles themselves.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b95e87bbdced94956d87d81f41edf00a.svg)
