The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AnGaelach

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

I had no problem with gay marriage but to be completely fair, it would be social suicide to come out against it (abortion is much more nuanced so there might be a more "open" argument for/against it) so of the 37% of people who voted against it, the majority certainly didn't tell their friends or family they were voting that way.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.

The issue here is the level of nepotism that goes around broadcasting circles. The same reason why we see the same old presenters getting the same old jobs in RTE again and again and no space being made for new talent.

At a national level, Iona are nobodies. They have no specific affiliation or remit under the catholic church, no membership, unclear sources of funding, and seem to exist entirely as a platform for two or three conservative catholic journalists. They don't "do" anything except comment on stuff.

So the question has to be asked as to why anyone gives them the time of day? Why do Iona seem to appear every time anything with a remotely religious slant is being discussed? Why not Una Bean Mic Mathuna? Or the Irish Countrywomens' Association? They are as big and influential to the Irish population as Iona are.

Enter Tom Savage. A former priest, husband of Terry Prone, father of Anton Savage and founder/director of the communications clinic. A PR firm who represent a lot of Irish people, including many of those in RTE, Fine Gael, and with strong links to those in Iona and other bodies.

Oh and of course, Tom was also a broadcaster on RTE and a member of the board up until 2014.

So it would be fair to say that Tom and his company had/have significant influence within RTE when it comes to getting people on air. In fact, I don't think it would be unfair to say that RTE just ring the communications clinic and ask them who should go on air.

Tom died 4 weeks ago, and while I've no doubt Terry Prone is still best buds with a lot of the senior figures in RTE and Iona, it'll be interesting to see if the links start to wane and Iona find themselves being squeezed out in favour of other conservative political commentators.

Geuze

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

I agree.

I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person.

I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand.

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

seamus

Geuze wrote: »

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

You won't be asked to vote to make abortion more available, just to ensure that we don't have to have a national referendum every time someone discovers a flaw in the constitution in relation to abortion.

dav3

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

The leaders of the Catholic church and it’s devotees played and intrinsic part in amending the constitution. Although they’ve tried to fight subsequent referendum via proxies and the usual names and organisations, when a referendum is eventually called, they should be leading the charge to keep the 8th amendment as they were in 1983 when they lead a campaign of fear and misinformation.
If the Catholic church’s stance has changed since then, they should let us know. We all know this is not the case, and as they are primarily responsible for amending the 8th in 1983 they should be brought to the forefront of any debate to explain their reasons for keeping this amendment in place.

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

AnGaelach

dav3 wrote: »

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association? I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.

seamus wrote: »

As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?

If you're generally pro-life (as I am), why would you ever accept a scenario where the rights of the unborn is nothing more than a political football that can be exchanged in horse-trading? Our other Constitutional rights are not left up to the Dáil to decide, because they shouldn't be within the realm of the Dáil to decide. I don't think a political party should be able to make abortion more or less restrictive based solely on horse-trading. I don't think our rights should be diminished like that.

AtomicHorror

AnGaelach wrote: »

It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.

To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.

You notably did not thank the poster who slurred women seeking abortions as "hussies", so naturally you are not the target of criticism of that user or those who agreed with him

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.

AnGaelach

AtomicHorror wrote: »

To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.

In this instance, yes, but I have been called puritan and I have been told I want to use women as brood-mares before - when the pro-choice side want nothing more than to discredit your character.

There are some unsavoury characters on this side of the aisle as well, granted.

AtomicHorror

Geuze wrote: »

I agree.

I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person.

I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand.

You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.

Who in the world sees themselves as unreasonable?

Pretty much nobody does. Yet almost everyone is, in fact, quote unreasonable. That's just being human. Accepting that you are prone to unreasonable, irrational thinking and behavior is the first step to correcting the problem.

Your position, by contrast, demands no change of you. Handy.

AtomicHorror

AnGaelach wrote: »

In this instance, yes, but I have been called puritan and I have been told I want to use women as brood-mares before - when the pro-choice side want nothing more than to discredit your character.

There are some unsavoury characters on this side of the aisle as well, granted.

The pro-choice side is also composed of individuals, and I haven't noticed any here calling you a puritan. So can we stop with this "they" stuff?

dav3

AnGaelach wrote: »

Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association? I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.

I'm not saying you’re guilty of anything. Whether people want to hear it or not, the main actor in keeping the 8th in pace is the catholic church.
I have no doubt there are many people of different religions that would hold the same view as the catholic church on abortion and perhaps even a few people who have no religion would hold the same view also.

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

keano_afc wrote: »

So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.

No, but it helps. Vast, vast majority of the most active, vocal and fervent pro life campaigners in this country have always been Catholics. The eighth wouldn't be there without the church. As the church's influence wanes, Ireland is becoming less pro life, although I suppose that's just a coincidence? In general terms you can't really avoid talking about Catholicism when you talk about abortion. I don't blame people for not liking to find themselves on the same side as the Sherlocks and the quinns of the world but there you go.

AnGaelach

dav3 wrote: »

I'm not saying you’re guilty of anything. Whether people want to hear it or not, the main actor in keeping the 8th in pace is the catholic church.
I have no doubt there are many people of different religions that would hold the same view as the catholic church on abortion and perhaps even a few people who have no religion would hold the same view also.

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

That's a whole lot of waffle for nothing of consequence. Why are you trying to equate me with an old "hypercatholic dinosaur" when I've told you I'm at best a lapsed Catholic? "It doesn't matter why you believe what you believe because other people also believe that too so you're just like them!"

Would you ever grow up?

Roadhawk

Pro choice all the way!!!...the OP should have created a poll for this thread...would have been interesting.

NuMarvel

kunst nugget wrote: »

They seem to get a lot of complaints from both sides any time this issue is raised outside of referenda about balance and fairness if only one side of the argument is being favoured. Hasn't Ray D'arcy been stung a couple of times in relation to it?

From what I can recall, most of his cases involve a lack of objectivity rather than balance. He was getting caught out for giving his opinion rather than not having a strict 50/50 balance.

eviltwin wrote: »

does that apply across the board? I can't see ,for example, Spirit FM, which has a strong Christian ethos, taking on a balanced view on this issue

BAI's rules apply to all broadcasters, public and private. I'd have to double check, but I don't think there are allowances for ethos, etc.

Murrisk

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

njs030

AnGaelach wrote: »

If you're generally pro-life (as I am).

How can you call yourself pro life if you are ignoring the life that currently exists in favor of one that is dependent on her?

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

kunst nugget

notjustsweet wrote: »

How can you call yourself pro life if you are ignoring the life that currently exists in favor of one that is dependent on her?

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…

njs030

kunst nugget wrote: »

And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…

No it doesn't, a person can be pro choice for others but not agree with abortion for themselves. That's agreeing with choice therefore pro-choice.

dav3

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's a whole lot of waffle for nothing of consequence. Why are you trying to equate me with an old "hypercatholic dinosaur" when I've told you I'm at best a lapsed Catholic? "It doesn't matter why you believe what you believe because other people also believe that too so you're just like them!"

Would you ever grow up?

I have no idea why you’re quoting "hypercatholic dinosaur", I think you may have me confused with someone else.
I was merely pointing out the reason why one side of the debate would consist primarily of an organisation responsible for amending the 8th.

Although it was directed at someone else, you asked…

AnGaelach wrote: »

… Where does this place me in your black/white model?

To which I replied...

dav3 wrote: »

Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.

and reinforced it with…

dav3 wrote: »

The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.

I’m not sure what the confusion is.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion.

Every church in Ireland bar the Roman Catholic church was against passing the the 8th amendment in the first place (before you even get to the human rights groups, humanists, atheists etc), so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.

AnGaelach

Murrisk wrote: »

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

Ah yes I forgot the Middle East was Catholic. Where are you getting that statistic from exactly?

AnGaelach

notjustsweet wrote: »

Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.

Trying to provoke an argument on the grounds of such a stupid point is farcical.

"And pro-choice means pro-murder of a foetus and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean."

Ad nauseam.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football. I don't think the Oireachtas should have legislative power over that right, just as how it doesn't have legislative power over your right to association or your freedom of religion.

We're not the UK. Parliament is not sovereign here, the people are.

njs030

AnGaelach wrote: »

Trying to provoke an argument on the grounds of such a stupid point is farcical.

"And pro-choice means pro-murder of a foetus and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean."

Ad nauseam.

Hardly. I've already answered this, a choice can mean yes or no so it clearly does not mean pro murder of anything, what a ridiculous thing to say.

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

ToddyDoody

'Amend' isn't as sexy on a jumper.

blanch152

Murrisk wrote: »

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

It is not just a Catholic view.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml

"Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.

Buddhists regard life as starting at conception."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion


"The sacred texts of Hindus have a clear stance against abortion. The Vedas represent abortion as morally reprehensible and it is listed with the most heinous actions"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

"In Islam, the foetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation,[1] and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_Christianity#Eastern_Orthodox_Church


"The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion (including the use of abortifacient drugs) is the taking of a human life"


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes elective abortion based on a belief in the "sanctity of human life."

"Despite their general opposition to abortion, fundamentalist churches that include the conservative evangelical, Non-denominational, Southern Baptist and Pentecostal movements, do not have a consensus doctrine regarding abortion. While these movements hold in common that abortion (when there is no threat to the life of the mother) is a form of infanticide, there is no consensus as to whether exceptions should be allowed when the mother's life is in mortal danger, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Some argue that the lives of both the mother and fetus should be given equal consideration, in effect condemning all abortion including those performed to save the life of the mother. Others argue for exceptions which favor the life of the mother, perhaps including pregnancies resulting from cases of rape or incest"

njs030

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not just a Catholic view.


"Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.

While "traditional Buddhists" may say one thing, modern day Buddhists have no view.
You left that out....on purpose??

Are you aware can write a Wikipedia page? I could go and amend all of those now with quotes that suit my agenda and post them here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football.

You don't think it is odd that you, a lapsed Catholic who does not take moral direction from the Church, agrees with exactly one Irish church on the subject of the 8th?

Not the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, the Quakers? Just a coincidence that you happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this one?

Because I certainly don't think it is.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

notjustsweet wrote: »

While "traditional Buddhists" may say one thing, modern day Buddhists have no view.
You left that out....on purpose??

Are you aware can write a Wikipedia page? I could go and amend all of those now with quotes that suit my agenda and post them here.

Organised religions don't like abortion, how is that an objectionable thing to say?

Not that the Hindu or Buddhist lobbies have much clout in Ireland though.

Zubeneschamali

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not that the Hindu or Buddhist lobbies have much clout in Ireland though.

Or India? Nepal? Thailand? Bhutan?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or India? Nepal? Thailand? Bhutan?

What?

eviltwin

Most organised religion also has problems with homosexuality and thinks women are less than men so that says all we need to know about the views of organised religion.

AnGaelach

notjustsweet wrote: »

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

But I agree with allowing abortion where it's a threat to the life of the mother (and indeed I can be persuaded into abstaining from voting on the grounds of foetal abnormalities and the like).

My thinking the rights of the unborn to life coming before the wants of a woman doesn't mean I don't value the life of the woman - it means I value the right to life above the "right" to have an abortion.

You can twist the words all you want, or try to paint me as cruel, but that's not going to change my mind.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You don't think it is odd that you, a lapsed Catholic who does not take moral direction from the Church, agrees with exactly one Irish church on the subject of the 8th?

Not the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, the Quakers? Just a coincidence that you happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this one?

Because I certainly don't think it is.

My happening to agree with them on something does not mean that I'm affiliated with them. I disagreed with the Church on gay marriage, does this mean I'm taking direction from an LGBT group?

I don't get what's so hard about this for you to understand.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

My thinking the rights of the unborn to life coming before the wants of a woman doesn't mean I don't value the life of the woman - it means I value the right to life above the "right" to have an abortion.

How do you reconcile this with the current constitutional position that the unborn's right to life is secondary to a woman's right to travel for an abortion and to access information about abortion services overseas? To be consistent, should pro-life people not be seeking repeal of the 13th and 14th Amendments?

blanch152

notjustsweet wrote: »

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

To take your example to the extreme, you are suggesting that if a woman, 38 weeks pregnant, suddenly changes her mind and wants her fetus dead, that is ok, even though the fully healthy fetus would survive if delivered?

You see, it is not so simple as pro-choice. If pro-choice was an absolute right as you seem to demand, there would be no limits. A person could choose to have any medical procedure just like that.

In reality, like every other choice, there are limits. Whether it is a time-limit like 12 weeks as in most Islamic countries, or other limits such as reasons, there is no completely unfettered pro-choice regime in the world.

We already have abortion in Ireland - in the case of the woman's life in immediate danger. Therefore, the argument is no longer about demonising the Catholic Church, or protecting the sacred life of the unborn, as most people get caught up in. Rather, we should be discussing, as a mature society, what type of limits we should be putting on the choice to have an abortion.

However, that doesn't even work in Ireland. Instead we get arguments about how we should have an extremely liberal regime where anyone can have an abortion up to 30 weeks for any reason? Or should we have an extremely conservative regime where abortion is only possible where the woman's life is in immediate danger?

If the debate is to mature properly, we need to look at whether we allow abortion for specific reasons (physical health, mental health, rape, abuse, deformity etc.) or only for a specific time (12, 16, 20, 22, 24 weeks etc.). It is incumbent on people who want change to move on and create this mature debate.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

To take your example to the extreme, you are suggesting that if a woman, 38 weeks pregnant, suddenly changes her mind and wants her fetus dead, that is ok, even though the fully healthy fetus would survive if delivered?

You see, it is not so simple as pro-choice. If pro-choice was an absolute right as you seem to demand, there would be no limits. A person could choose to have any medical procedure just like that.

In reality, like every other choice, there are limits. Whether it is a time-limit like 12 weeks as in most Islamic countries, or other limits such as reasons, there is no completely unfettered pro-choice regime in the world.

We already have abortion in Ireland - in the case of the woman's life in immediate danger. Therefore, the argument is no longer about demonising the Catholic Church, or protecting the sacred life of the unborn, as most people get caught up in. Rather, we should be discussing, as a mature society, what type of limits we should be putting on the choice to have an abortion.

However, that doesn't even work in Ireland. Instead we get arguments about how we should have an extremely liberal regime where anyone can have an abortion up to 30 weeks for any reason? Or should we have an extremely conservative regime where abortion is only possible where the woman's life is in immediate danger?

If the debate is to mature properly, we need to look at whether we allow abortion for specific reasons (physical health, mental health, rape, abuse, deformity etc.) or only for a specific time (12, 16, 20, 22, 24 weeks etc.). It is incumbent on people who want change to move on and create this mature debate.

A termination of pregnancy is just that, a termination. It has already happened in this country that a woman who wanted a late termination had a c-section & the baby was delivered perfectly & then fostered/adopted.
In reality, it doesn't happen, how many women do you think get to 28+weeks of a pregnancy & then change their minds?
It's a non issue, it doesn't happen.

blanch152

bubblypop wrote: »

A termination of pregnancy is just that, a termination. It has already happened in this country that a woman who wanted a late termination had a c-section & the baby was delivered perfectly & then fostered/adopted.
In reality, it doesn't happen, how many women do you think get to 28+weeks of a pregnancy & then change their minds?
It's a non issue, it doesn't happen.

I am against late-term abortions of healthy fetus. Many premature babies suffer problems in later life, sometimes serious ones. A wait of a few weeks for the woman in such cases to allow a baby go to term is a small price to pay for a lifetime of better health for the baby.

For that reasons I am in favour of a time-limit on terminations. What should it be? Not sure, but am interested in the medical view.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

I am against late-term abortions of healthy fetus. Many premature babies suffer problems in later life, sometimes serious ones. A wait of a few weeks for the woman in such cases to allow a baby go to term is a small price to pay for a lifetime of better health for the baby.

For that reasons I am in favour of a time-limit on terminations. What should it be? Not sure, but am interested in the medical view.

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

blanch152

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

There is at least one poster arguing that a woman's right to choose trumps all, that is an argument for late terminations. And that means termination not birth, after all, if you don't want it, why let it live?

Sitting in the middle, I have no time for the unreconstructed Catholics who wave posters of aborted fetus but I also have no time for the flag-wavers and cheerleaders of Repeal the 8th who give the impression they don't care at all for the unborn.

A balance is necessary in all this, but modern politics seems to like the extremes.

But, as I said earlier, termination is a termination of pregnancy.
There was a case here last year or the year before where a woman looked for a late termination, she had a c-section & the baby was fostered or adopted.
No one is advocating killing babies! A termination of pregnancy is just that, termination.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football. I don't think the Oireachtas should have legislative power over that right, just as how it doesn't have legislative power over your right to association or your freedom of religion.

We're not the UK. Parliament is not sovereign here, the people are.

Can you define 'the unborn' please?

volchitsa

blanch152 wrote: »

There is at least one poster arguing that a woman's right to choose trumps all, that is an argument for late terminations. And that means termination not birth, after all, if you don't want it, why let it live?

I haven't seen anyone arguing for killing healthy term or near term babies.
I think you're making that up.

Also, weren't we told that Ms Y got a termination? Her baby's alive, right?

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

My happening to agree with them on something does not mean that I'm affiliated with them. I disagreed with the Church on gay marriage, does this mean I'm taking direction from an LGBT group?

I don't get what's so hard about this for you to understand.

I understand it fine.

It's like all the religious folks who say their religion makes perfect sense from top to bottom, and is clearly true, and who just happen, by coincidence, to have been taught this one true religion as kids by the people they relied on.

You soak up stuff like this as a kid, and it sticks with you,. Even if you throw out this or that piece of mental furniture, you still live in that house.

I am not just lapsed Catholic, I am a materialist, a humanist and an atheist. But I'm a Catholic atheist.