Bishops want free vote on civil partnership

PeterIanStaker

I think the bishops are experts at using people's ignorance - thats what religion is all about after all.

shay_562

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious as to what objections people would have against a free vote, other than the risk (remote I believe) that it would go against it.

Deciding whether or not minorities get basic civil rights through a vote is a little twisted, don't you think? Rights shouldn't be something you get because the majority are feeling benevolent, or conditional on popularity. If marriage is a civil right that should (for whatever moral, legal or principled reasons) be extended to LGBT people, then that should happen even if the majority of citizens are against it. Would it have been legitimate for white Americans to vote on giving African-American citizens rights? Or for any country to have held a vote on granting women's suffrage? Now, there's differences of opinions on whether or not gay marriage is such an inalienable civil right, and fine, that conversation should be had. But it should be had at a higher level than a popular vote.

Rev Hellfire

shay_562 wrote: »

Deciding whether or not minorities get basic civil rights through a vote is a little twisted, don't you think? Rights shouldn't be something you get because the majority are feeling benevolent, or conditional on popularity.

Whats a right, other than an expectation? All rights are conferred by society, regardless of what people think they're not some intrinsic thing you automatically have. And these can also be revoked, for example in the states the death penalty revokes your right to life.

shay_562 wrote: »

If marriage is a civil right that should (for whatever moral, legal or principled reasons) be extended to LGBT people, then that should happen even if the majority of citizens are against it. Would it have been legitimate for white Americans to vote on giving African-American citizens rights? Or for any country to have held a vote on granting women's suffrage? Now, there's differences of opinions on whether or not gay marriage is such an inalienable civil right, and fine, that conversation should be had. But it should be had at a higher level than a popular vote.

In all those cases society did in a sense vote, by electing or empowering those who like them wished these things to happen.

We are just fortunate to live in a society which is willing to grant these rights.

wonderfulname

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Whats a right, other than an expectation? All rights are conferred by society, regardless of what people think they're not some intrinsic thing you automatically have. And these can also be revoked, for example in the states the death penalty revokes your right to life.
We are just fortunate to live in a society which is willing to grant these rights.

Well now that were getting all philosophical.. A right is of little importance if either nobody or everybody has it, e.g. the Irish aren't too fussed about the right to a fair trial or the right to shelter because we all take it for granted, in this society it is "some intrinsic thing you automatically have". With regards to marriage not everybody is afforded the right equally, it is a right which is protected zealously by the state with regards to heterosexual couples, but is simply not afforded to same sex couples, so it has become of great importance to some people.

Rev Hellfire

wonderfulname wrote: »

Well now that were getting all philosophical..

Agreed

wonderfulname wrote: »

With regards to marriage not everybody is afforded the right equally, it is a right which is protected zealously by the state with regards to heterosexual couples, but is simply not afforded to same sex couples, so it has become of great importance to some people.

And that's reasonable expectation to have.

DubArk

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The church is an interest group just like every other interest group in the country. As representatives of the church, Bishops have a right to lobby the government. To deny them that is a breach of freedom of speech.

I never said that they couldn’t lobby…. Let them lobby as mush as they want but on the same front, I and others have exactly the same right to tell them to mind their own business…

This is a Republic and their outdated belief system has no place here, as far as the running of the state and the legislator.


Simple as that, let them take care of their own matters in their club and my advice to them is, Read and Read again the Ryan report over and over till the message gets through, they’re NOT TRUSTED, they’re NOT INCHARGE and they’re NOT WANTED!
See I’m executing my democratic right, not as a group but as an individual to tell them to F*CK off and get real.

Iwasfrozen

DubArk wrote: »

I never said that they couldn’t lobby…. Let them lobby as mush as they want but on the same front, I and others have exactly the same right to tell them to mind their own business…

Sure you can tell them to bugger off but any attempt to silence them would be anti-democratic and against the principles of free speech.

DubArk wrote: »

This is a Republic and their outdated belief system has no place here, as far as the running of the state and the legislator.

You're right when you say this is a republic. But I wouldn't say the Church has no role. Are you forgetting that the church runs nearly all primary schools in the country? So they are responsible for educating the vast majority of out children.

Also a lot of people still go to mass, especially in rural countys where the priest has the opportunity to preach the churches teachings.

You wouldn't think it but I'm willing to bet a huge amount of people are influenced this way. So I wouldn't exactly say they have no place in the running of the State.

DubArk wrote: »

Simple as that, let them take care of their own matters in their club and my advice to them is, Read and Read again the Ryan report over and over till the message gets through, they’re NOT TRUSTED, they’re NOT INCHARGE and they’re NOT WANTED!

I wouldn't exactly say that but regardless of what the Ryan report says they did in the past they still have a right to voice their opposition to new legislation.

DubArk wrote: »

See I’m executing my democratic right, not as a group but as an individual to tell them to F*CK off and get real.

Fair enough. I can't argue with that. Though I don't understand why you would want them to fúck off. Anything that they have done in the past they have done as individuals. You cannot and at least should not tar them all with the same feathers.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Fair enough. I can't argue with that. Though I don't understand why you would want them to fúck off. Anything that they have done in the past they have done as individuals. You cannot and at least should not tar them all with the same feathers.

No - Thats not true - individuals might have abused people but then their superiors covered it up - The covering up part of it was not done on an individual basis but on an institutionalised basis. Even the vatican told people that they had to cover things up

LegacyUser

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Whats a right, other than an expectation? All rights are conferred by society, regardless of what people think they're not some intrinsic thing you automatically have. And these can also be revoked, for example in the states the death penalty revokes your right to life.



In all those cases society did in a sense vote, by electing or empowering those who like them wished these things to happen.

We are just fortunate to live in a society which is willing to grant these rights.

Can't remember my bloody password so going unregged.

This definition of a right is wrong. Excuse the unintended pun! The whole point of a right is that you can't confer them or take them away on the basis of majority opinion etc. The whole reason for defining fundamental rights is to safeguard against this.

LegacyUser

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Whats a right, other than an expectation? All rights are conferred by society, regardless of what people think they're not some intrinsic thing you automatically have. And these can also be revoked, for example in the states the death penalty revokes your right to life.



In all those cases society did in a sense vote, by electing or empowering those who like them wished these things to happen.

We are just fortunate to live in a society which is willing to grant these rights.

You are confusing laws with rights. They are two very different things. In certain countries it is illegal for women to drive cars. This law doesn't change the fact that they have a right to drive a car, it just impedes it.

Iwasfrozen

Johnnymcg wrote: »

No - Thats not true - individuals might have abused people but then their superiors covered it up - The covering up part of it was not done on an individual basis but on an institutionalised basis. Even the vatican told people that they had to cover things up

You're right, the cover up was a team effort to prevent the full force of the individual priests actions damaging the image of the church as a whole.

And looking through this thread one can easily see what they were afriad of. People denouncing the church's opinions and teachings based on the unrelated actions of some of their members. I'm no fan of the churchs child abuse scandal cover-up but it annoys me to see it used to attack the church for speaking up in an unrelated manner.

DubArk

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure you can tell them to bugger off but any attempt to silence them would be anti-democratic and against the principles of free speech.


You're right when you say this is a republic. But I wouldn't say the Church has no role. Are you forgetting that the church runs nearly all primary schools in the country? So they are responsible for educating the vast majority of out children.

Also a lot of people still go to mass, especially in rural countys where the priest has the opportunity to preach the churches teachings.

You wouldn't think it but I'm willing to bet a huge amount of people are influenced this way. So I wouldn't exactly say they have no place in the running of the State.


I wouldn't exactly say that but regardless of what the Ryan report says they did in the past they still have a right to voice their opposition to new legislation.


Fair enough. I can't argue with that. Though I don't understand why you would want them to fúck off. Anything that they have done in the past they have done as individuals. You cannot and at least should not tar them all with the same feathers.

I can’t see why they would have any say in Civil Law in modern Ireland. Who is trying to silence them? They were told to mind there own business that’s all. Read what I have writen!

I, as a citizen of this state have no interest in their opinions on my CIVIL rights. Where is the problem with that?

I don’t believe in their imaginary friend and their church, so I choose to tell them to go away and mind their own business. BTW they’re loads and loads of people like me too.

I don’t care how many people attend the ritual cannibalism of their god every week either or whether they’re from the country or a city…. It makes no difference to me if their priest makes them all jump up and down at his command or listen to his opinion based on him talking to his imaginary friend.

They can voice whatever they want and I and others will voice right back.

THEY HAVE NO ROLE IN RUNNING THE IRISH REBUBLICS STATE.

TylerIE

I wonder did the bishops just do this in order to be seen to be saying something???

There was a major noticeable absence of an organised structured Catholic presence outside the Dail....