Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2015 03:22PM

floggg wrote: »

Your mistake is thinking Fran acknowledges the existence of anything which disagrees with his chosen workd view.

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 · 15-04-2015 03:47PM

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.

Second mistake: think even Fran believes the nonsense he comes out with.

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2015 03:52PM

floggg wrote: »

Second mistake: think even Fran believes the nonsense he comes out with.

If he does (and in the unlikely event that those beliefs are correct) he will have some serious questions to answer.

:pac:

orubiru · 15-04-2015 03:54PM

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.

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 · 15-04-2015 04:46PM

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 15-04-2015 04:52PM

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.

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.

One eyed Jack · 15-04-2015 04:57PM

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.

Honestly I would ask you not to judge people by the standards set by David Quinn and his ilk, they set the standard pretty damn low, but there are many people in the RCC community who overlap with the LGBT community and identify as members of both communities -

Gay Catholic Voice Ireland

Gay Catholics pray 2015 will be the year of the welcome

To be young, gay and Catholic

15-04-2015 04:57PM

fran17 wrote: »

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

And they are, of course, correct in this attribution of blame.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/religions-unite-against-referendum-324040.html

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.

Our so-called "Equality" Act:

1) A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if—
(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or
(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

floggg · 15-04-2015 05:01PM

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.

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.

eviltwin · 15-04-2015 05:12PM

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.

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 · 15-04-2015 05:13PM

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.

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 · 15-04-2015 05:21PM

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.

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 · 15-04-2015 05:25PM

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.

If there is one thing the Breda O'Brien interview yesterday made clear its that they will willingly twist and distort whatever they can to try and blur the issues.

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.

eviltwin · 15-04-2015 05:27PM

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.

Its a pity there aren't more like your mammy Flogg, the world would be a much better place.

Penn · 15-04-2015 05:30PM

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.

That's what annoys me about the current petition to have Iona's charity status removed.

All it will do is allow Iona to cry and moan about how they're being silenced, and give them an excuse to parade anything they've ever done that can be considered charitable in a "Look how great and charitable we are!" way.

Their arguments are so easily defeated if you don't follow them down the rabbit holes. Demolish their arguments, not them, because direct attacks on them allows them to change the conversation to play the victims.

Benny_Cake · 15-04-2015 05:38PM

Bad Horse wrote: »

That's what annoys me about the current petition to have Iona's charity status removed.

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.

floggg · 15-04-2015 05:44PM

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.

While I don't think we would benefit from trying to do this now, I think they do need to be made disclose where they are getting their money from.

They are inserting themselves into all manner of public policy debates but aren't accountable to anybody in term of their financing. That shouldn't be allowed - if their donor(s) want to buy influence, they should be made do so in a transparent and public manner.

seenitall · 15-04-2015 06:12PM

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.

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.

Bridge93 · 15-04-2015 06:15PM

Sure didn't Jesus himself have two dads. What more do you need to get Catholics to support SSM.

Blind hypocrisy I tell ya!!

galljga1 · 15-04-2015 06:37PM

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!!

And one of his dads was himself. Slightly dysfunctional family.

floggg · 15-04-2015 06:40PM

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.

I agree with parts of that but not others. I think my mother identifies as Catholic and that is something important to Her, so I don't think she dan be criticised for declaring herself as such.

She's somebody how was exercised Her vote in favour of all progressive issues she has had the opportunity to, and has down nothing to hold back social justice issues.

If there are people at fault for misrepresenting Her position it's the church who claims to speak for her and the politicans who allow their claims to influence them.

Secondly, I don't think the census has the effect you claim - though I agree non-believing "cultural Catholics" shouldn't define themselves as such on the census.

Having spoken to a TD on this issue, attendees to their constituency clinics and direct lobbying are the primary motivator of their positions.

Thirdly, I have no love whatsoever for the RCC but Catholics generally tend to be more liberal on social issues than most other christian groups. That's true both here and in countries like the US.

So it doesn't have quite the mind control powers it once has. What we should all be afraid of us evangelicals. Some have a fervor and self righteous not far removed from militant Islamists. I read an article during the week about the rise of evangelicals in Brazil which actually scared me.

And we don't need to look hard to find countless examples of violent anti-gay rhetoric from evangelicals in the US.

Shrap · 15-04-2015 06:40PM

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.

I can't agree it's a pointless exercise. To my mind it's a timely and positive reaction to their very public claims that they are not campaigning against the referendum and blatantly doing exactly that (as they always did) very publicly. I think people have completely lost patience with their carry on, and considering there are 6,500 signatures in the last 18 hrs, that's a debate worth having I'd say.

They can continue to twist whatever is said against their views and their methods to make those who are calling them out in their lie look like baby-farming free-speech squashing sodomites if they want to, but the fact remains that they were asked plain and simple by the likes of Colm O'Gorman if they were campaigning and if they were being upfront with the relevant authorities about that, and they lied through their teeth in order to continue to hide their funding from the public.

With the aid of modern social media, in this campaign of theirs they've been caught out in their lie by the greater public. Now is the time to pull them up on it, not when they're quiet.

Ps. I actually have no problem with them being out and about on the air waves saying what they say, so long as I can see where they're genuinely coming from, like I can with Amnesty Ireland.

Morag · 15-04-2015 06:43PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

David Quinn, most slappable face in Ireland?

Nope that would be Ronan Mullen

seenitall · 15-04-2015 06:59PM

@ 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.

Zen65 · 15-04-2015 07:48PM

fran17 wrote: »

This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.

No fran17, this referendum will do nothing of the sort.

What it will do is take an existing situation where a SS couple have an adopted child (which is almost always be the biological child of one of them) and confer on the non-biological / non-adoptive parent an automatic right of guardianship in the event that the other partner dies, or is unavailable to act in loco parentus.

David Quinn knows this. He is well aware of the stupidity of his argument. Suggesting that the state is designing a fatherless or motherless family is like suggesting that widow's pension encourages women to murder their husbands. Nobody is going to go out and adopt a child simply because their partner has acquired the right to share the role of parent with full state protection.

Zen65 · 15-04-2015 07:52PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

David Quinn, most slappable face in Ireland?

It is absolutely disgusting that you would promote the use of violence in this manner against Mr Quinn! I don't think it is very mature to . . . . . oh good heavens look at him . . . . it really is a very slappable face!

(Of course this is in jest, as is Mr Cohen's remark! Let's not forget this is AH)

Zen65 · 15-04-2015 08:05PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You missed one possibility: This is David Quinn's job.

I think I covered that in possibility #3, albeit without stating the obvious

I wonder how much Mr Quinn gets paid to do that job? He seems to be the Frank Dunlop of the religious far-right.

MathDebater · 15-04-2015 08:05PM

There are roughly 4,500 children in foster care and a further 2,000 in state residential centres. I guarantee this. The kids in actual need couldn't give a damn about their parents sexuality. All this talk from Iona and the likes of David Quinn about what's best for the children. Like they care a jot.

shruikan2553 · 15-04-2015 08:32PM

Single women have children
Single men have children
Unmarried men and women have children.
Married men and women have children.
Unmarried men and men have children.
Men and men in a civil partnership have children.
Unmarried women and women have children.
Women and women in a civil partnership have children

These are already situations which exist in Ireland. These are situations which will continue to exist regardless of a yes or no result. The allowing unmarried couples to adopt was/is going to be passed as legislation, not the referendum.

With the groups including the following supporting it:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Psychoanalytic Association
National Association of Social Workers
Child Welfare League of America
North American Council on Adoptable Children
Canadian Psychological Association
Australian Psychological Society
ISPCC

The EU court of human rights declared that same sex couples have the right to adopt a child as well.

Studies have shown that sexual orientation of parents doesnt make a difference and that children benefit from their parents relati0onship being legally recognised.

On the other hand we have Lolek ltd and a few people like fran who say otherwise.

I think I'll take the opinion of the people who have done the studies and who's job is to look after the welfare of children rather than people who have a strange obsession with telling everyone why gay people cause bad things.

floggg · 15-04-2015 08:48PM

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.

I do agree with that to a certain extent, and I don't think she can distance herself from the policies entirely. But she's not somebody who is actively involved in her parish and wouldn't be a religious mass attendee (so to speak).

I guess you have to be reasonable in your expectation in what ordinary people can do. I would think a yes vote will be a big messae, but perhaps we should expect more stuff like walk outs from mass if there is objectionable sermons or letter writing campaigns etc.

But at the end of the day, if they aren't personally attacked there is only so much people are realistically going to do.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments