Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »
    So we have a typed up document without any reference to its author attributed to david Quinn.

    Where does it say that?


  • #33
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Manach wrote: »
    Progressive means I presume moving in some definiable direction. However without any deseriable roadmap beyond a relativism recycled anti-clerical agenda we might regard the 40 years spend in the desert as a w/e break. At least until the social stresses of such progress to the breakdown of familial societal structures as happening in the UK.

    Anyone that believes in progress in Ireland had to adopt an anti-clerical agenda . There was no other choice .


  • #34
    campingcarist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭campingcarist


    JohnBee wrote: »
    Not sure if people have heard David Quinn comment on the yes vote but just wondering how Christians feel?

    Basically his attitude was that they had an uphill battle, that their tactics failed and that they started their campaign too late.

    I found this very patronizing. It almost suggests that the outcome of the referendum, in his view, is that it represents the outcome of the best campaign. To me this is quite small minded of him. Why can he (and Iona) not just accept that this is a sign of the will of the people and that his views (and that of the mothers and fathers group) are minority views that are out of place in 2015?
    The will of the people yes; but not the will of God. The same goes for divorce.


  • #35
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »
    So we have a typed up document without any reference to its author attributed to david Quinn.

    Splitting hairs tbh. We can attribute actions like asking Dil Wickremasinghe who the father of her child was on a public forum to David though, nasty little toe rag that he is.


  • #36
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    henryporter wrote: »
    Splitting hairs tbh. We can attribute actions like asking Dil Wickremasinghe who the father of her child was on a public forum to David though, nasty little toe rag that he is.

    But who wrote that letter and to whom?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Stheno wrote: »
    But who wrote that letter and to whom?

    Dunno who, it was sent to Una Mullally iirc


  • #38
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    campingcarist wrote: »
    The will of the people yes; but not the will of God. The same goes for divorce.

    Many many masses were said in support of a no vote, probably none for a yes vote
    Many many people prayed for a no vote, probably a huge amount less for a yes vote.
    Yes vote prevailed. God is omnipotent. Logic would suggest that this is the will of God.


  • #39
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    Whoever wrote it has some serious issues, not just with gay people, but people in general. Una Mulally was the undeserving recipient


  • #40
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭henryporter


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Many many masses were said in support of a no vote, probably none for a yes vote
    Many many people prayed for a no vote, probably a huge amount less for a yes vote.
    Yes vote prevailed. God is omnipotent. Logic would suggest that this is the will of God.

    Hmm, dunno if it's more indicative of the fact that God doesn't actually exist?


  • #41
    mrsoundie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭mrsoundie


    It must be frightening for David Quinn and his ilk. Their world is changing from something comforting (only to themselves) and changing into a world that other find exciting and inviting, where everyone is equal, regardless of colour, creed, race, gender or sexuality.

    People are afraid of change. Some more than others.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    henryporter wrote: »
    Hmm, dunno if it's more indicative of the fact that God doesn't actually exist?

    Or if he does he doesnt really care about gay people getting married.

    He could have done something so that the yes voters saw the truth and would vote no. Im sure he'll send an earthquake or hurricane to some area thats prone to them to let out his anger on some undeserving foreign children.


  • #43
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    campingcarist wrote: »
    The will of the people yes; but not the will of God. The same goes for divorce.

    Absolutely. Unfortunately for those who believe in and follow the will of God, it aint the only show in town. You're free to follow the will of God yourself, if it gives you comfort in this life then good for you. What you cant do nor expect is that everyone must follow the will of God and it is completely ridiculous to expect the laws of a nation to reflect the will of God. That ship has sailed my friend. The show is over.

    As for Quinn, what i find most galling is that he seems to genuinely believe that the yes vote yesterday was down to the yes campaign receiving favouritism of some sort from the media and government, thus influencing the people to vote yes. How delusional can you get? Someone needs to take the man aside and explain to him simply that his views were sidelined because voting yes and thereby giving gay people equal rights in terms of civil marriage WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.


  • #44
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I've been wondering about Quinn and Co. Do you think they really felt it was going to be a No? If so it must have come as a real shock to them, I wonder what is going through their minds now and how its going to impact on them going forward.


  • #45
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Many many masses were said in support of a no vote, probably none for a yes vote
    Many many people prayed for a no vote, probably a huge amount less for a yes vote.
    Yes vote prevailed. God is omnipotent. Logic would suggest that this is the will of God.

    Of all the masses and people in attendance we can be fairly sure that a large percentage of the normal catholic massgoers of the country listened to the message from the pulpit and either ignored it completely or decided it was just wrong and voted yes instead of following the church line.


  • #46
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    campingcarist wrote: »
    The will of the people yes; but not the will of God. The same goes for divorce.

    And whose opinion matters more do you think?


  • #47
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Jenny Thalia wrote: »
    Dunno who, it was sent to Una Mullally iirc

    Pretty vile


  • #48
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    henryporter wrote: »
    Hmm, dunno if it's more indicative of the fact that God doesn't actually exist?
    Don't go outside today. Lightning predicted in your area.


  • #49
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Of all the masses and people in attendance we can be fairly sure that a large percentage of the normal catholic massgoers of the country listened to the message from the pulpit and either ignored it completely or decided it was just wrong and voted yes instead of following the church line.

    That is what is so good about this result. People made a conscious caring decision to vote yes as it was the right thing to do. There is hope for this country. I was actually tempted to pop into mass last Sunday to see was there a message from the pulpit but thought better of it.


  • #50
    Allyall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    His side gave as good as they got:
    CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg

    Is that a real letter?
    Why is the signature cut out? From reading the post it seems to point the finger anyway.


    If it is real that is disgusting. Fairly serious accusation if it isn't.


  • #51
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    galljga1 wrote: »
    That is what is so good about this result. People made a conscious caring decision to vote yes as it was the right thing to do. There is hope for this country. I was actually tempted to pop into mass last Sunday to see was there a message from the pulpit but thought better of it.

    I see it as people reaffirming their faith in each other and in our own ability to be decent human beings while allowing for the Irish state to move even farther away from the current church and state collaboration.

    I see in the near future an Ireland where the church has no control or influence over any state institution or body. It has started already with the church refusing to allow schools be used as polling stations so the state invited other groups and organisations to provide premises for use as polling stations. Voting/polling in any state election or referendum should never again be allowed in any property owned or run by any religious group or organisation.

    In the near future I would love to see all national schools and second level schools taken(as compensation) into state ownership and having a non denominational ethos. Separate the church and state fully and completely.

    There is still a huge place and a need for the church in Ireland but only as a separate and standalone entity rather than some kind of parasite on the back of the state that sucks a way at the will of the people.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I see it as people reaffirming their faith in each other and in our own ability to be decent human beings while allowing for the Irish state to move even farther away from the current church and state collaboration.

    I see in the near future an Ireland where the church has no control or influence over any state institution or body. It has started already with the church refusing to allow schools be used as polling stations so the state invited other groups and organisations to provide premises for use as polling stations. Voting/polling in any state election or referendum should never again be allowed in any property owned or run by any religious group or organisation.

    In the near future I would love to see all national schools and second level schools taken(as compensation) into state ownership and having a non denominational ethos. Separate the church and state fully and completely.

    You can sing that one.


  • #53
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,023 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Allyall wrote: »
    Is that a real letter?
    Why is the signature cut out? From reading the post it seems to point the finger anyway.


    If it is real that is disgusting. Fairly serious accusation if it isn't.

    the signature is missing because Una Mullaly refused to publish the name (rightly IMHO) of the sender.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #54
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I've been wondering about Quinn and Co. Do you think they really felt it was going to be a No? If so it must have come as a real shock to them, I wonder what is going through their minds now and how its going to impact on them going forward.

    I think deep down they knew it would pass. But they wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they let it go without offering some form of resistance. That's why I don't understand the bitterness towards them from some quarters. What were they expecting a conservative lobby group to do? I'd be more annoyed if a referendum got passed without any opposition.


  • #55
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,175 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    It has started already with the church refusing to allow schools be used as polling stations so the state invited other groups and organisations to provide premises for use as polling stations.

    What? Where did that happen?

    I voted in an RC school, as I imagine the vast majority of voters did, just like every other election.

    Seriously, there are schools which are normally used as polling stations which refused to be used this time because of the referendum question being asked?!? They did realise that voters were free to vote No if they wished?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #56
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I think deep down they knew it would pass. But they wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they let it go without offering some form of resistance. That's why I don't understand the bitterness towards them from some quarters. What were they expecting a conservative lobby group to do? I'd be more annoyed if a referendum got passed without any opposition.

    I deeply resent the fact that they were dishonest. All this talk of surrogacy and parents - the truth is that on before this referendum passed, adoption and surrogacy were available to same sex couples, and that all over the country, same sex couples are raising children. Nothing that happened on Friday changed that one iota and to suggest otherwise was nothing but a lie.

    I have respect for people who play fair. No respect for those who lie and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Luckily most people didn't fall for it, but it was still unethical.


  • #57
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    His side gave as good as they got:
    CFYSHikWYAA-HQ3.jpg

    Call me a nutter if you like, but I can't help but doubt the authenticity of that bile.


  • #58
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Call me a nutter if you like, but I can't help but doubt the authenticity of that bile.

    You're a nutter...:pac:

    Seriously, you think that Una Mullally wrote that letter herself and is pretending it was sent to her? Seriously?


  • #59
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    What? Where did that happen?

    I voted in an RC school, as I imagine the vast majority of voters did, just like every other election.

    Seriously, there are schools which are normally used as polling stations which refused to be used this time because of the referendum question being asked?!? They did realise that voters were free to vote No if they wished?
    I was presiding officer in a school belonging to a convent.
    I love the misinformation some people put out :)


  • #60
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    What? Where did that happen?

    I voted in an RC school, as I imagine the vast majority of voters did, just like every other election.

    Seriously, there are schools which are normally used as polling stations which refused to be used this time because of the referendum question being asked?!? They did realise that voters were free to vote No if they wished?
    The boards of management of quite a lot of the church schools and buildings used in the past decided this time that they could not allow voting on this issue to take place on their premises because it went to much against the ethos of their church. Obviously "their church" is not everyone's church as has been shown by the massive yes vote by so many Christians and Catholics.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,175 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I think deep down they knew it would pass. But they wouldn't be very good at their jobs if they let it go without offering some form of resistance.

    To extend the 'job' analogy, I and lot of other people would love to know who is paying their wages...

    That's why I don't understand the bitterness towards them from some quarters. What were they expecting a conservative lobby group to do? I'd be more annoyed if a referendum got passed without any opposition.

    It would be reasonable to expect them not to vilify non-traditional parents - anyone who isn't a male-female couple married in a catholic church isn't a 'gold standard' family according to them

    There was the bishop who said that not everyone who has kids is a proper parent, what an insulting and nasty thing to say

    It would have been reasonable to expect them to campaign on the issue and not bring in irrelevant issues purely to whip up confusion and fear. Surrogacy and adoption were not affected in any way by the referendum passing or falling

    It would have been reasonable for them to disclose their sources of funding, as Yes Equality, GLEN, etc. have done. The openness of the Yes side in this regard was used as a stick to beat them with, while Iona and the shadowy groups linked to it are veiled in secrecy

    It would have been reasonable to expect them to argue their case on its merits, not constantly complain about how they were supposedly being 'silenced' and 'bullied' during their 50% of broadcasting airtime, and in all their national newspaper columns. Not to invent and exaggerate reports of posters being torn down, I can't speak for anywhere else but in Dublin their posters were ubiquitous.

    Edited to add: What they had to say about 'biological reproduction' etc. was very hurtful and insulting to people with fertility difficulties and parents of adopted children.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



Advertisement