Papa Francis - Same Sex Marriage

ScumLord

The pope and higher ups in the church like to talk on behalf of their god. They keep going on about how god doesn't like gays but god keeps making gays. Surely what actually happens in what god supposedly created is a better indication of what god wants than what some old man thinks god wants.

I can understand him saying these things though and wouldn't really get upset about it. He's the spokesperson for his religion, he has to promote it's rules and ideals in the same way Enda Kenny has to promote the ideals of his party whether he truly believes them or not.

kneemos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you agree that some Mulims should be allowed to enforce Sharia law or stoning because it's something they hold sacred?

No,but they can spout their opinions.

Lyaiera

Trigger Happy wrote: »

And LGBT ireland is another club

No it's not.

K4t

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Bye bye the last shred of any credibility your argument had :rolleyes:

Religion and the Nazis are a perfect comparison. They both had good sides to them. The Nazis built motorways, but their defining characteristics, the things which they were really about, were evil.

What religion does well most social organisations do well Tennis clubs, charities, rotary clubs...etc But what really makes a religion. What is the necessary condition? Faith. And an exclusive faith that trumps other sources of truth is a very dangerous thing when it has the power it does in this country in terms of lobbying our government and swaying votes.

kneemos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Really? Please explain the emotional and religious blackmail that the no side would be able to use? Why is it ok for the church to tell lies on these subjects?

If they are using emotional blackmail it's obviously not working as most people are in favour of gay marriage.

El_Duderino 09

kneemos wrote: »

No,they believe it will damage something the hold sacred.

It's not either/or. It's both what I said and they are afraid that secular marriage will become more popular and take from their market.

So the catholics want to legislate their religious rules on everybody, in order to protect their prophet/ religion. Where have we heard this discussion recently?

MistyCheese

AFAIK the Catholic doctrine suggests that they don't have a problem with gay people, just the act of penetrative homosexual sex. Which would mean that lesbians are grand. Any toys, tools, strap-ons or dildos are a no-no for everyone, regardless of sexual preference.

This means, in theory, that no Catholic person would have any problem shaking hands, breaking bread, working beside or even showering with people who are homosexual, they would just condemn the actual act of two men having sex.

If Peter and Tom started taking off each others underwear and gave some kind of strong sign that one of them was about to penetrate the other, then Mr. or Ms. Catholic might be obliged to say "Ah here lads, knock that off now, that's a sin'" (double check this with your nearest priest, bishop, or cardinal though, I've been expressly asked to not speak for them myself)

So that could be why some people are opposed to gay marriage. Even people who claim to have 'no problem' with gay people (Aww, isn't that lovely of them?) Sex within a marriage is supported, expected, celebrated (at least it is if you're doing it right). This should mean that gay marriage between two women is okay though (bur they must promise not to use dildos. Promise it right there in the vows).

Taking all this is mind (quick hello to anyone who's still with me at this point) it would mean that anyone who identifies as Catholic and claims to have a problem with gay people based on their religious beliefs then they are actually mistaken and they are simply a bigot.

Annasopra

Trigger Happy wrote: »

And LGBT ireland is another club with rules who have a position on this and influence their members and partake in debates on the subject.
I am not defending either organisation, I just recognize their right to exist, to have their own rules and to exert influence on their members.
And I recognise, as a non member, that I wont waste my time trying to influence these clubs from the outside.

What are you on about?

Lyaiera

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about?

I have absolutely no idea. I would like to know what the member fees are to LGBT Ireland are. Do they run a Stitch n Bitch? I'd quite like to get back into knitting.

Menas

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about?

That there are different groups with different points of view and they are all entitled to that point of view.
So criticising the catholic church for its view on SSM for eg is a futile excercise. They are entitled to their view no matter how much we disagree with it.

El_Duderino 09

MistyCheese wrote: »

AFAIK the Catholic doctor, ine suggests that they don't have a problem with gay people, just the act of penetrative homosexual sex. Which would mean that lesbians are grand. Any toys, tools, strap-ons or dildos are a no-no for everyone, regardless of sexual preference.

This means, in theory, that no Catholic person would have any problem shaking hands, breaking bread, working beside or even showering with people who are homosexual, they would just condemn the actual act of two men having sex.

I think there is prohibition on 'man laying with man as he would lay with woman'. But it also prohibits sodomy and fornication which is any act which causes sexual gratification but is not penetrative vaginal sex with intention to procreate.

Basically any foreplay is out between any people. Male female child, doesn't matter to catholics. However they only focus on legislating against the gays.

Don't call them biggots though. It's selectively restricting rights on people bases on their religion.

The_Valeyard

Lyaiera wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea. I would like to know what the member fees are to LGBT Ireland are. Do they run a Stitch n Bitch? I'd quite like to get back into knitting.

Maybe the fee for Gaire or websites like that? Wouldn't know myself. Would entry fee into LGBT clubs count?

Time for lunch. Nom nom nom

Annasopra

Trigger Happy wrote: »

That there are different groups with different points of view and they are all entitled to that point of view.
So criticising the catholic church for its view on SSM for eg is a futile excercise. They are entitled to their view no matter how much we disagree with it.

No seriously. What are you on about?

LGBT Ireland isnt anything

Menas

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No seriously. What are you on about?

LGBT Ireland isnt anything

Sorry, got the name wrong. National LGBT federation.

RobertKK

One would think people didn't know what is allowed and what isn't by the church, and that Pope Francis is somehow not a Catholic.

However all areas and groups in society have the right to free speech, to say what they believe, whether you think they are right or wrong.

Some would like certain groups censored by saying such a group has no right to be getting involved, if we live in a free society then anyone can say something that you agree or disagree with.
Else we can all become like Islamic jihadists and believe the right shouldn't be allowed to be aired.

The church is a part of society, it should allowed to express it's views. We can't have censorship imposed on those who don't say what we want to hear.

MistyCheese

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think there is prohibition on 'man laying with man as he would lay with woman'. But it also prohibits sodomy and fornication which is any act which causes sexual gratification but is not penetrative vaginal sex with intention to procreate.

Ah, okay, so any kind of non-procreative sex is off the table and you're not allowed to get any pleasure out of it. That's lesbians out too then.

K4t

RobertKK wrote: »

The church is a part of society, it should allowed to express it's views. We can't have censorship imposed on those who don't say what we want to hear.

Nobody is asking for that, not myself anyway. Don't make them victims here.


The fact is the church is given a platform by both the media and our government regularly and it is an incredibly strong lobby group with regards legislation. That is the biggest crime of all.

skooterblue2

Tzardine wrote: »

The Catholic Church seriously needs to get with the times or face the reality of losing a great deal of followers. They can start by allowing same sex marriage and female priests.

They are too stubborn to ever change but they will not last another 2000 years unless they do.

Pope Francis Already tried to make massive changes. He started by saying we need to welcome Gay people and re define the role of women in the church, the Curias, Cardinals and ArchBishops pulled the rug from under hime and rejected his teaching. A lot of old men seriously need to retire and we need fresh blood to support this revolutionary Pope.

Another aspect is how big is the Roman Catholic Church? a fair estimate would 1 Billion followers? Its easier to leave and join something that suits you than change a whole organisation of 1 Billion....

The Church of Ireland made revolution steps a few years ago by suggesting we need to talk about same sex marriges. Much easier to a small and newer organisation than a larger and older one ....

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

The church is a part of society, it should allowed to express it's views. We can't have censorship imposed on those who don't say what we want to hear.

"You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Annasopra

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Sorry, got the name wrong. National LGBT federation.

And it has about 10 members!

Bootros Bootros

Since this isn't a pressing issue yet as the referendum is a few months away could it not go to A&A where it belongs?

mrsbyrne

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Having an opinion Is one thing, trying to dictate what people can and cannot do and trying to stop people from being happy is another.

Voting however you damn well please in a referendum is not dictating what people can and cannot do.
It's democracy.

Annasopra

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Since this isn't a pressing issue yet as the referendum is a few months away could it not go to A&A where it belongs?

Report it as a suggestion. The mods dont read through all threads.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Voting however you damn well please in a referendum is not dictating what people can and cannot do.
It's democracy.

Sure it is. You're voting to say one group is not equal to another or they are equal and that vote goes to deciding what a group can do.

mrsbyrne

K4t wrote: »

Nobody is asking for that, not myself anyway. Don't make them victims here.


The fact is the church is given a platform by both the media and our government regularly and it is an incredibly strong lobby group with regards legislation. That is the biggest crime of all.

How on earth is it a crime ? Why do you want to deny freedom of speech to a body which represents more than 80% of the population according to the last census?

Timberrrrrrrr

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Voting however you damn well please in a referendum is not dictating what people can and cannot do.
It's democracy.

Voting how.you want to is democracy, being told to vote a certain way or you will go to hell is emotional/religious blackmail.

K4t

mrsbyrne wrote: »

How on earth is it a crime ? Why do you want to deny freedom of speech to a body which represents more than 80% of the population according to the last census?

Platform 9 and 3/4.

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Sure it is. You're voting to say one group is not equal to another or they are equal and that vote goes to deciding what a group can do.

So what is the point in having a referendum if people are not just allowed to vote as they please? How do uou propose the issue of SSM be sorted?

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

How on earth is it a crime ? Why do you want to deny freedom of speech to a body which represents more than 80% of the population according to the last census?

The Church doesn't support freedom of speech

Annasopra

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So what is the point in having a referendum if people are not just allowed to vote as they please? How do uou propose the issue of SSM be sorted?

Ideally we wouldnt have to have a referendum and it could be legislated for. I accept we do though.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So what is the point in having a referendum if people are not just allowed to vote as they please? How do uou propose the issue of SSM be sorted?

The same way heterosexual marriage was sorted.

You can vote whatever way you want but you are voting on what a group in Ireland can and cannot do.

SpaceTime

I think this new Pope is a good PR man. However, don't forget the same conservative, institutionally homophobic organisation hasn't gone away just because it's now got Papa Trendy as the new front man.

His comments about Charlie Hebdo reveal a lot too ; the classic "wife beater defence" - She (France) was asking for it - didn't know when to shut up!

Not at all surprised really. A leopard doesn't change its spots and neither does the Catholic Church.

El_Duderino 09

MistyCheese wrote: »

Ah, okay, so any kind of non-procreative sex is off the table and you're not allowed to get any pleasure out of it. That's lesbians out too then.

Yeah that's my understanding. 2 men or 2 women are precluded because they can't procreate so no sexual act could be considered within the rules. Anything heterosexuals do that is not for procreation using hands, fingers, mouths etc, is equally ruled out.

Catholics should focus on tellingtheir own people what to do and leave the state to run its business. Catholics will be free to not marry a gay

K4t

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think this new Pope is a good PR man. However, don't forget the same conservative, institutionally homophobic organisation hasn't gone away just because it's now got Papa Trendy as the new front man.

Read through this thread and the other Pope Francis one, it's worse, people have settled. They've accepted the church for what is and are torn between viewing Francis as Jackie Healey Rae and a revolutionary.


I am accused of "hate" and having an agenda and such for even starting this thread. They seem to think the church has been reformed and we can move on with our lives. I cannot believe what I am reading. I suppose if support and protection and engagement of paedophilia wasn't enough to finally sway the general public away, nothing ever will be. Depressing.

mrsbyrne

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Voting how.you want to is democracy, being told to vote a certain way or you will go to hell is emotional/religious blackmail.

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

padd b1975

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fine, but no need to force their beliefs on others right?

So ban catholics from voting in the referendum on gay marriage?

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

Did gay people get to vote for straight marriage ?

There's a reason minority rights shouldn't be voted on by a majority. Alas that's where we stand now.

K4t

mrsbyrne wrote: »

.....or maybe people just dont agree with SSM? Are you seriously suggesting that religious people or people who just don't agree with SSM not be allowed to express themselves? Do you realise at all how ridiculous that sounds? So what if some vote no because they think they'll go to hell? That's freedom of thought and freedom of speech. You can't force people to agree with you.

People are free to vote whichever way they like, for whatever ridiculously idiotic reasons they want, and we are free to label them homophobes and ****stains of society.

mrsbyrne

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ideally we wouldnt have to have a referendum and it could be legislated for. I accept we do though.

That's good. I will be voting yes on the day snd I will defend to the death my neighbours right to think and vote as they damn well please irregardless of how they came to the desicion.

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

That's good. I will be voting yes on the day snd I will defend to the death my neighbours right to think and vote as they damn well please irregardless of how they came to the desicion.

And you would respect freedom of speech of someone to offer their opinion on how someone voted?

Valetta

K4t wrote: »

People are free to vote whichever way they like, for whatever ridiculously idiotic reasons they want, and we are free to label them homophobes and ****stains of society.

Why would you do that?

And whom are "we"?

K4t

Valetta wrote: »

Why would you do that?

And whom are "we"?

Because I believe it to be true. I'll add in ignorant for good measure.

Valetta

K4t wrote: »

Because I believe it to be true. I'll add in ignorant for good measure.

Ah... You've dropped the "we", I see.

padd b1975

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

being told to vote a certain way or you will go to hell is emotional/religious blackmail.

The Pope actually said that??

mrsbyrne

Daith wrote: »

Did gay people get to vote for straight marriage ?

There's a reason minority rights shouldn't be voted on by a majority. Alas that's where we stand now.

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

SpaceTime

The thing with same sex marriage though is that it's one of those issues where it's very, very difficult for someone to argue against without being homophobic.

First of all its accepted at this stage that gay people exist, that it absolutely isn't a lifestyle choice anymore than your eye colour, height or skin colour.

So, if you're making an argument that gay people shouldn't be extended the exact same rights as straight people, how exactly do you justify that other than because you 'just don't like homosexuality' or you think it's 'immoral' or you find the idea of two bloke or two women in bed 'offensive/disturbing etc'

Unfortunately, that is a fear or dislike of gay people or homosexuality in general and it's the dictionary definition of homophobia.

Every single argument I've heard against it seems to fundamentally come down to a "it's just not right... Two lads... doing ... ya know.." base argument. That is homophobia.

I don't see it as any different to those "I'm not a racist but black people shouldn't be in the same schools as white people" arguments they had in the United States in the 1950s.

I think there's an attempt (by homophobes) here to redefine "homophobia" as something more akin to violent crime so that they can say "I'm not a homophobe, I just think the gays should remain in the shadows'

Daith

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

When did you vote on the bank bailout? Or the right of a heterosexual couple to marry? Or if gay people can adopt?

skooterblue2

padd b1975 wrote: »

The Pope actually said that??

Bendict possibly but not Francis

padd b1975

mrsbyrne wrote: »

What I'd your alternative to a referendum then Daith? In this case you don't think the people should get to vote.. Can you tell us any other scenarios where the people shouldn't be allowed the final say?

Most likely anything He/she doesn't agree with.

Classic Irish liberalism right there.

mrsbyrne

K4t wrote: »

People are free to vote whichever way they like, for whatever ridiculously idiotic reasons they want, and we are free to label them homophobes and ****stains of society.

You might find plenty of people don't care at all about what "we" (who is we) think of them.