Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

alaimacerc

SW wrote: »

Cork pastor compares homosexuality to rape.

Just like rape. Just like adultery (Full Article).

Wow. Hatey and jam-packed with non sequitur.

Ledbetter wrote:

It would violate my conscience as a religious leader. I will not marry a same sex couple.

Well, that's handy, then, Craigy, as you weren't being asked. On the one hand, in the sense that it's not the matter on the Marriage Equality ballot. And secondly... I don't think the same-sex couple would want you to. *shudder*

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

a) an incorrect understanding of the constitution - he believes that the "family" in the constitution is a married couple and their children. Wrong.

Hang on -- isn't that essentially the gist of what it does say? It's late, I may be missing something obvious...

(Children being either "natural" or adoptive, of course.)

seamus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Hang on -- isn't that essentially the gist of what it does say? It's late, I may be missing something obvious...

(Children being either "natural" or adoptive, of course.)

I should have been clearer. "Family" in the constitution does not require children. From a constitutional point of view, a married couple with or without children constitute a "family". Quinn's assertion is that a family in the constitution assumes or requires children.

I guess there's a big question here as to whether a single parent with their children constitute a "family" or a cohabiting couple and their children. I think the answer to that is "no", and that's probably something else that needs to be addressed - that a family is only constitutionally recognised if the two adults are married.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

alaimacerc wrote: »

Wow. Hatey and jam-packed with non sequitur.


Well, that's handy, then, Craigy, as you weren't being asked. On the one hand, in the sense that it's not the matter on the Marriage Equality ballot. And secondly... I don't think the same-sex couple would want you to. *shudder*

Potentially daft question coming in here, but... the passing of the bill would not force Catholic priests, for example, to perform same sex weddingd would it? I ask because, assuming not, what's the point of the consceince clause he wants...?

shruikan2553

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Potentially daft question coming in here, but... the passing of the bill would not force Catholic priests, for example, to perform same sex weddingd would it? I ask because, assuming not, what's the point of the consceince clause he wants...?

I doubt it, divorced people (marital status) and non Catholics (religion) can be used as a reason not to marry someone already.

Bannasidhe

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Potentially daft question coming in here, but... the passing of the bill would not force Catholic priests, for example, to perform same sex weddingd would it? I ask because, assuming not, what's the point of the consceince clause he wants...?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I doubt it, divorced people (marital status) and non Catholics (religion) can be used as a reason not to marry someone already.

No doubts about it.
It absolutely will NOT.

This call for a 'conscience' clause is a pointless PR exercise which is another water muddying tactic.

This is about CIVIL marriage as recognised by the State - that is all.
It has NOTHING to do with ANY religious ceremony.

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Potentially daft question coming in here, but... the passing of the bill would not force Catholic priests, for example, to perform same sex weddingd would it? I ask because, assuming not, what's the point of the consceince clause he wants...?

No, it won't. As Bannasidhe points out, churches already refuse to marry people on the basis of their religion, whether they've been divorced, and even where they're from.

So this referendum won't change that and the church will be permitted to refuse to perform same sex marriages.

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

I should have been clearer. "Family" in the constitution does not require children. From a constitutional point of view, a married couple with or without children constitute a "family". Quinn's assertion is that a family in the constitution assumes or requires children.

Gotcha.

I guess there's a big question here as to whether a single parent with their children constitute a "family" or a cohabiting couple and their children. I think the answer to that is "no", and that's probably something else that needs to be addressed - that a family is only constitutionally recognised if the two adults are married.

I thought there'd already been judgements that found they weren't? At least in the cohabiting case. Where there's a single parent whose kids were from an earlier marriage (whether ending in death or divorce), I'd assume a constitution family does exist?

Might be pushing the legal speculation out somewhat aimlessly, but I'd ideally like to be entirely clear in my own mind about the implications of the "founded on marriage" clause, since the consequences for that are a significant part of why the ME amendment's being done the way it is.

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

I should have been clearer. "Family" in the constitution does not require children. From a constitutional point of view, a married couple with or without children constitute a "family". Quinn's assertion is that a family in the constitution assumes or requires children.

I guess there's a big question here as to whether a single parent with their children constitute a "family" or a cohabiting couple and their children. I think the answer to that is "no", and that's probably something else that needs to be addressed - that a family is only constitutionally recognised if the two adults are married.

Currently Irish law defines the 'Family' as based on marriage even though this is in contravention of The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms...

The leading case in this respect is that of The State (Nicolaou) v. An Bórd Uchtála [1966] which defined the family as that based on marriage. In it, the Supreme Court rejected an unmarried father’s claim that the Adoption Act 1952 was unconstitutional in that it allowed for his child to be put up for adoption without his consent. Though it is no longer the case that an unmarried father has no rights in respect of his child, and despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Keegan v. Ireland [1994] that the State is in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the definition of the family unit as being based on marriage has survived and has been reaffirmed by the Irish courts time and time again.

https://lauraonlaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/how-is-the-term-family-defined-under-irish-law/

What this means in effect is that, as it stands, a married childless couple are a 'family' but an unmarried, heterosexual, cohabiting couple with biological children are not a 'family' as far as the Irish legal system is concerned- so much for 'protecting' children....

The Constitution, although it makes reference to 'The Family', does not actually define what it means by that save saying marriage is ' the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society'... it also says 'The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.' which is why we have wages for housework... oh... we don't....

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No doubts about it.
It absolutely will NOT.

This call for a 'conscience' clause is a pointless PR exercise which is another water muddying tactic.

This is about CIVIL marriage as recognised by the State - that is all.
It has NOTHING to do with ANY religious ceremony.

Exactly. The ONLY people who will be obliged to carry out same-sex marriages are HSE registrars.

As public servants they are required to leave their own views at the door and perform their duties to the public without fear or favour. Any HSE registrar who declines to perform a same-sex marriage should be treated exactly the same as if they had refused to perform an inter-racial marriage. It's really no different, we don't accept bigotry on racial grounds so society should not tolerate bigotry on sexual orientation grounds either. Religion as a figleaf for prejudice doesn't wash, either.

Brian Shanahan

Of course all this religionista bleating about "redefinition of marriage" is essentially so much hot air, from the christian perspective at least.

For example the rcc didn't actually have an official sacrament of marriage until 1563 (scroll down to point 3). Yes, that's right less than five hundred years ago. Before that there were religious marriages taking place, but mainly among the rich and their likelihood and form would differ from area to area at the whim of the local bish. And most protestant demoninations still don't consider it a sacrament, i.e. even if they marry you in a church, it's still not religious.

The fact of the matter is, that for most of history religion had pretty much nothing to do with why people got married, nor how they were enforced or regulated. For most of history marriage was simply a means of cementing alliances or enlarging domains or wealth. They were the preserve of the rich and thus regulated accordingly.

The Black Oil

Not boarding the Breda nonsense train today.

a postere

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Exactly. The ONLY people who will be obliged to carry out same-sex marriages are HSE registrars.

As public servants they are required to leave their own views at the door and perform their duties to the public without fear or favour. Any HSE registrar who declines to perform a same-sex marriage should be treated exactly the same as if they had refused to perform an inter-racial marriage. It's really no different, we don't accept bigotry on racial grounds so society should not tolerate bigotry on sexual orientation grounds either. Religion as a figleaf for prejudice doesn't wash, either.

A lot of black people are not in favour of homosexual marriage

lazygal

a postere wrote: »

What happens if the registrar happens to be black person that objects ?

I guess like every other public or civil servant they'll be told its part of his or her duties. Why would a black person be different to any other person anyway?


If you disagree with civil marriage rules including marrying those of the same sex if the referendum passes why would you perform such marriages at all if your religion forbidden it? Surely God would intervene and tell you to quit such sinful activity as marrying those of the same.sex?

lazygal

a postere wrote: »

A lot of black people are not in favour of homosexual marriage

You're editing quick smart. Why the focus on black people? Are you implying some racial element to marriage equality?

Bannasidhe

a postere wrote: »

A lot of black people are not in favour of homosexual marriage

And a lot are.

For example here is Karen Underwood at the launch of the yesequalitycork campaign. Karen is, as you can see from the photo, a singer. Her wife was in the audience as was her daughter.



How do red herrings feel about marriage equality?

lazygal

Red herrings are served at meetings in the gay lobby to write the homosexual agenda, I understand.

a postere

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do red herrings feel about marriage equality?

I don't know, have you tried asking one of your shoal ?

B_Wayne

a postere wrote: »

I don't know, have you tried asking one of your shoal ?

So do you have any explanation for your ridiculous points?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do red herrings feel about marriage equality?

Never mind - they have come out in support of YES.

Turtwig

A postere do NOT post in this thread again!

Turtwig

lazygal wrote: »

Oh I bet you say that to all the lads.

Mod: please don't rise to the bait.

Ta

robindch

EoghanIRL wrote: »

As far as I know his holiness touches homosexuals equally with his noodly appendages.

That's what all those dangly bits are for.

Stands to reason. Or it does a few times a week anyway.

robindch

Oh Christ. The Bishops in partnership with Lolek Ltd have gone and whacked the nuns out of kilter. This could get nasty. In fact, there's a tiny and very antisocial part of me which hopes it might.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/nun-criticises-irish-bishops-threat-to-withdraw-priests-as-civil-marriage-registars-31149299.html

Indo wrote:

An American nun who has been censured by the Vatican for her ministry with LGBT people has criticised the Irish bishops’ threat to withdraw priests from their role as civil marriage registrars as “counterproductive to the welfare of heterosexual Catholics”. Speaking to the Irish Independent in Limerick where she was attending a major international conference for catholic reform leaders, Sr Jeannine Gramick said the bishops’ threat made them “sound like little children – ‘if you do this I am going to pick up my marbles and go home’.”

“I think they would be punishing heterosexual couples in the sense of making it more difficult for them as they would have to have two ceremonies and it wouldn’t hurt the gay population,” she said. Asked about the forthcoming referendum on gay marriage, the nun said: “You can be a catholic and vote for civil marriage for lesbian and gay people because it is a civil matter – it has nothing to do with your religion.” The reform conference, which was organised by the censured Irish priest, Fr Tony Flannery, called for full participation in next October’s Synod on the Family of Catholics who are LGBT, divorced and re-married, members of inter-faith families and other marginalised people in the Church. It also called for the Church to pay particular attention to women who are living in situations of poverty, oppression and violence.

Another central issue discussed by the conference delegates who came from Ireland, the UK, India, the US, Austria, Switzerland and elsewhere, was governance and accountability in the Church. Fr Brendan Hoban of the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland said there was “grave dissatisfaction” among his 1,000 members over the procedures of electing new bishops currently being operated by the papal nuncio, Archbishop Charles Brown. “We don’t believe real consultation is taking place in dioceses, and the net of possible candidates is not being spread widely enough,” he said. “We think that there are genuine candidates in a lot of dioceses who would be much more effective than some of the men that are being appointed,” Fr Hoban criticised.

The Co Mayo parish priest added that the policy of parachuting bishops into dioceses from other parts of the country, which has been used in the American church, was “very unsuited” to the Irish context. However, the delegates were upbeat about the impact of Pope Francis. “With the resignation of Pope Benedict we are at the end of an era, and this is our best chance to renew the church for a long time“, Fr Flannery said. The Association of Catholic Priests has called on the Irish bishops to get behind Pope Francis and this new era of reform.

lazygal

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/article31153701.ece
Breda in the Sindo today.

Nick Park

robindch wrote: »

Oh Christ. The Bishops in partnership with Lolek Ltd have gone and whacked the nuns out of kilter. This could get nasty. In fact, there's a tiny and very antisocial part of me which hopes it might.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/nun-criticises-irish-bishops-threat-to-withdraw-priests-as-civil-marriage-registars-31149299.html

So, American nuns get upset at the prospect of genuine separation of Church and State in Ireland?

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/article31153701.ece
Breda in the Sindo today.

I admit I tried to read it but my eyes kept glazing over so I may have missed something but gist of it seems to be Breda was afeard cos of the bullies who call her homophobic, she donated some of the dosh from RTE to charity and paid bills with the rest, Gay Christians and Straight Christians shouldn't have sex outside marriage because God said so, Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry cos they can't make babies together not that sex is only about making babies it's also about cuddling and snuggling with your spouse which is why Breda and Brendan can still do it even though they do not intend to have more babies (how can they do that? Is there some way of doing it and preventing babies happening???) and...

I couldn't take any more

magicbastarder

the headline is unfair, to be fair; she didn't say gay people shouldn't have sex, she said they should if they want to live a christian lifestyle.

henryporter

I think we finally see the great plan that Breda has set out in full - step 1 stop gay people getting married, step 2 tell gay people to abstain from sex until they are married. Way to go Breda, that plan is bound to ensure world domination or whatever else it is you crave.

Benny_Cake

Nick Park wrote: »

So, American nuns get upset at the prospect of genuine separation of Church and State in Ireland?

There may be some misrepresentation going on here, which isn't unusual for the Independent. She was on the Pat Kenny show on Friday morning and she seemed quite open to the idea of separating the civil component from church marriages as it would bring clarity to the situation.

Personally I don't think it would be any harm at all although there might be some practical hurdles in the short term.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

the headline is unfair, to be fair; she didn't say gay people shouldn't have sex, she said they should if they want to live a christian lifestyle.

What if they don't want to live a Christian lifestyle but just want to have a Civil Marriage so they can bond through sex like Breda and Brendan?

magicbastarder

i'm sure breda would reply 'that's not my problem'.

magicbastarder

anyway, niamh horan doesn't look very relaxed and happy in that photo. maybe she didn't like the interview.

Shrap

The complete and utter irony bypass in this sentence....

At that stage Breda wondered if it was all worth it, because, as she puts it: "It was having an impact on the people whom you love very much."

That she has missed the entire point that her recommendations for how gay people should live their lives and conduct their relationships has such a massive impact on people who love each other very much somewhat nullifies any sympathy I have for her and her family tbh.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sure breda would reply 'that's not my problem'.

To which I would reply people who want to live a Christian lifestyle aren't my problem so please keep it out of our civil legislation tanx veh muchly.

aloyisious

This video is from the "Mothers And Fathers Matter" group and is, quite probably, the most effective NO campaign message to date. It has as it's speaker a gay man. The only time he put's a foot wrong (IMO) is in his comments about Mary McAleese and her support for the Yes vote, seeing as she has a gay child. Paddy uses the "distrust the politicians" angle well, plus the comparison between the mother who had her child taken away from her back in the 60's, 70's and 80's and put up for adoption without her say-so because she was pregnant outside marriage, and the mother who would act as a surrogate for a same-sex couple. He really tug's on the heartstrings of the mothers at home.

PS:it hasn't changed my mind about voting yes as a yes vote also increases (IMO) the split between state and church when it comes to matters of lawful rights for citizens. Re Breda, the notion that Christians should have sway over state law on how agnostic citizens, and other religious belief citizens, when it comes to how the O/P's manage their private sexual affairs is not good for civil liberty.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4iqhU24phs

pH

magicbastarder wrote: »

the headline is unfair, to be fair; she didn't say gay people shouldn't have sex, she said they should if they want to live a christian lifestyle.

agreed - if you're gay and a catholic/christian then you need to decide whether you want to follow "Gods" rules and abstain from sex or not, I kind of feel sorry for someone in that position, but then again they're bringing it on themselves by being part of a religion that doesn't tolerate them so maybe not.

What if they don't want to live a Christian lifestyle but just want to have a Civil Marriage so they can bond through sex like Breda and Brendan?

I'm not sure what "advice" OBrien would have for non-christians, someone could ask her I guess, but I for one couldn't give a damn. We know what she is, and certain papers keep rolling her out as clickbait.

To be fair to her she also says:

"There is a big difference between my private beliefs and what I think the State should do."

Believe me I understand the outrage - None of these papers would give a racist a weekly column, no one would accept a "Blacks shouldn't vote or marry whites" column in the Times no matter how much attention it brought them - and for many of us OBriens thoughts on what gays are and aren't allowed to do are just as wrong and bigoted.

However if people are thinking like this then I'd like their thoughts out in the open - I feel no matter how vile some speech is, once voices start being shouted down and shunned we end up with a form of mob rule or government censorship which is far worse than anything OBrien is saying.

eviltwin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I admit I tried to read it but my eyes kept glazing over so I may have missed something but gist of it seems to be Breda was afeard cos of the bullies who call her homophobic, she donated some of the dosh from RTE to charity and paid bills with the rest, Gay Christians and Straight Christians shouldn't have sex outside marriage because God said so, Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry cos they can't make babies together not that sex is only about making babies it's also about cuddling and snuggling with your spouse which is why Breda and Brendan can still do it even though they do not intend to have more babies (how can they do that? Is there some way of doing it and preventing babies happening???) and...

I couldn't take any more

I'd bet the charity was Iona or another anti marriage organisation

obplayer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What if they don't want to live a Christian lifestyle but just want to have a Civil Marriage so they can bond through sex like Breda and Brendan?

They go to hell of course you silly.

a postere

Most Christians couldn't care less what non Christians do, but if you give them a vote they are entitled to vote anyway they want to.

shruikan2553

a postere wrote: »

Most Christians couldn't care less what non Christians do, but if you give them a vote they are entitled to vote anyway they want to.

That is true, sadly the ones who do are the problem. The likes of iona are in that group who hate the idea of religious freedom for anyone except themselves.

Doctor Jimbob

a postere wrote: »

Most Christians couldn't care less what non Christians do, but if you give them a vote they are entitled to vote anyway they want to.

You're coming dangerously close to making an argument for the abolition of religion tbh.

pauldla

a postere wrote: »

Most Christians couldn't care less what non Christians do, but if you give them a vote they are entitled to vote anyway they want to.

I wonder how true that is,though; Christianity having as it does a strong injunction for the faithful to proselytize. And it's not hard to think of examples of Christian groups being Very Very Concerned Indeed about what other people do. If the laity don't care about the activities of non-Christians, I'd say that's more in spite of their religion than because of it.

Brian Shanahan

a postere wrote: »

A lot of black people are not in favour of homosexual marriage

An awful lot of Americans were against giving black people their freedom, that still didn't make slavery right.

Again, how much are Lolek Ltd. paying you for your nonsense.

Turtwig

Mod:

A postere is thread banned so no point in replying to their posts.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:

A postere is thread banned so no point in replying to their posts.

*makes puppy dog eyes* Sowwy.

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

*makes puppy dog eyes* Sowwy.

I'd have accepted your apology if you'd posted some cute puppy pics. Instead, I'm afraid I have to ban you.

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd have accepted your apology if you'd posted some cute puppy pics. Instead, I'm afraid I have to ban you.

Just as a general query, would cute pics of cats or kittens suffice in similar circumstances, or must all attempts at placation have a canine theme?

alaimacerc

Nodin wrote: »

Just as a general query, would cute pics of cats or kittens suffice in similar circumstances, or must all attempts at placation have a canine theme?

While kittens are often cuter, nothing does "pathetic pleading" like a puppy.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

This video is from the "Mothers And Fathers Matter" group and is, quite probably, the most effective NO campaign message to date. It has as it's speaker a gay man....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4iqhU24phs

Just watched this, and it is the worst load of nonsensical $hite I have watched in a while.
I don't like to condemn without justification, so..

He opens the argument by listing his gay credentials. So this plays to the audience at the Kerry event; if even a gay man is against gay marriage, it must be wrong. I find it distasteful that he uses/abuses his "gayness" like that, to play to a homophobic audience.

Then he gives his central tenet at 1.20;

Dan the Kerryman wrote:

Opposing the referendum is not homophobic. What it does is to show a commitment to civil marriage. Not to religious marriage because that doesn't change, but to civil marriage as a valuable and useful institution.

Not homophobic? Allowing gays to marry will destroy the institution of marriage?
Dan does not explain his reasoning or attempt to answer these questions, but instead skips on to the unprovoked attack on Breda O'Brien by Newstalk when she was "only telling the truth".

Then he moves on to won't somebody please think of the children. He mentions marriage and says "its in the Constitution".
Here's what that says;.

3.1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

I see it does not say "the nuclear family of one man, one woman and 2.5 children", it just says the family. So it must include one parent families, childless families, families with adopted children, gay families with adopted children, and even surrogates, which are the subject of his final bit of hate speech. He compares surrogacy to prostitution and mentions "evil".

Dan never explains why it would be worse for a married gay couple to adopt a child together, compared to the current situation where a single gay person could adopt.