Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE CHURCH OF Ireland won’t be campaigning for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.
A spokesperson for the Church told TheJournal.ie it will be encouraging people “to vote according to their conscience”.
In 2012 the Church of Ireland General Synod passed a resolution affirming the Church’s understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
The spokesperson said that this is “the basis on which the Church’s liturgy for marriage is used”.
He said the Church “also recognises that the State has a duty and responsibility to legislate for its citizens”.
“Members of the Church are encouraged to participate along with all other citizens in the democratic process when the State consults on matters, such as the civil definition of marriage.
The Church of Ireland draws the attention of its members to its own doctrinal position, but does not direct its members how to vote. The Church encourages people to vote according to their conscience.
Last month Changing Attitude Ireland – a Church of Ireland LGBT group – welcomed the publication of the wording of the Marriage Equality Referendum.
Dr Richard O’Leary, the organisation’s chair, said that marriage should be “available to couples without distinction as to their sex”, just as civil marriage “may be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their race or religion”.
During Lent, Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin will hold a series of talks on same-sex issues and the Bible.
The Cathedral’s Dean, Very Revd Dermot Dunne, will chair the discussions.
In 2013, the Church set up a select committee to look into issues surrounding sexuality.
Dunne said the course is “designed to help that discernment process through active dialogue with people from all walks of life both religious and non religious”.
More information on the talks is available here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Finally, a church that gives an honest qualified stance.
And I’d support that too
Great news it’s a no from me .
No points for guessing who’s up next on the Iona “Institute”‘s puritanical hit list once May’s referenda are out of the way!
Their stance is a bit meh. They tell people to vote with their conscience but then direct them to Church teachings which would have them vote no. Some very clever wordplay I think. Sort of an illusion of freewill.
Keelan
I remember our parish priest (who was an awful pig) giving us a sermon about the Divorce referendum in the mid 80′s..
He told us “Vote according to your conscience. And if you have conscience at all you’ll vote NO”
Sinead, I enjoyed that!
“The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God”. Psalm 9:17
If this country votes yes it will mean that we are forgetting God.
Who’s up next to canvass for the yes side?
Elton and the boys?
Madonna?
Angelina and Brad?
Dame Edna?
Let the people make up their own mind.
Forgetting who, Frank?
Frank by believing in God you believe we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve.This makes everyone living a product of incest by the children of Adam and Eve which is something I’d like to forget.
I was christened CoE and my kids are christened Church of Ireland. Although my belief in religion & god has changed drastically over the years, I am proud that they have made the distinction between church marriage and civil marriage. Our vicar was a very open minded lady, I think encouraging people to go with their conscience is very in keeping with this ‘brand’ of Christianity. Less to do with judgement, punishments and the threat of hell if you disobey your religion; more to do with what is right in your heart. They seem to really accept that religion shouldn’t have a say in this… It IS a civil matter.
Holly, well and truly spoken. It truly is a civil matter.
I’m very impressed br Dr. Mary Warnock of the Church of England. In her book, “Dishonest to God”, she draws a clear line between the role of religion and the role of law.
The intrusion of religion into law making can have adverse consequences.
@winding down
They pretty much said the C of I is against gay marriage.
Why would the Iona Institute not like them?
Every journal ssm story has to be a yes campaign story, bias journalism
I have already shared this verse Frank, it’s good to see others who are like minded. We won’t be popular.
@Johnnyboy
“THE CHURCH OF Ireland won’t be campaigning for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.”
How is this biased?
Florence, Johnny won’t be able yo comprehend that. You’ll only stress him out
Johnny… Are you married? If so… How many gay people made a comment on your marriage… I would hazard to guess none. By that very token… Nobody has any right to comment on ssm… If 2 people fall in love and want to make a lifelong commitment then they have every right to. And I for one am behind it all the way.
The problem with this world is everyone is too obsessed with what the other person thinks, and with the growth of social media, more and more people think they have a correct and informed opinion… Codswallop.
I’m no hippy and not religious in any one vein, I will not be told ..I will live my life my way, as a respectable, soccer mum, dancing mum. I am no different to the millions of women that have found their girls, or men that have found their men.
Love … It just comes around the corner and WOW
Jenni you’re right all the way. Also people are quibbling about words. Marriage means joining or connecting. Obviously the word has legal meaning but in essence means just that, a joining together and that happens when two people fall in love. The state recognises this in civil partnership. We can’t force people to call it marriage and we can’t force churches to call it marriage. The churches are not ready to grow up yet and embrace life
Kevin, that’s a very good point. The derivation of the word “marriage” is a union or merger of two people.
Matrimony is the religious sacrament.
Marriage is a civil institution which should be open to all loving couple regardless of gender.
God has no issue with same sex marriage @frank you’re obviously not in the loop.
The referendum will be about CIVIL marriage, so could all the religions kindly butt out!
Kate, I’m unable to figure out why you got red thumbs for an accurate statement.
Civil marriage is a matter for civil law.
Religious matrimony is a matter for religion.
Religions are permitted to discriminate against persons of same sex orientation in a religious context.
Drr Mary Warnock, a prominent and devout Church of England member and an ethical philosopher contends I her book “Dishonest to God” that it should not be the role of religion to interfere in laws, which laws are matter of social order and for that purpose alone, not to express religious values .
I favour a secular republic.
And that is their view & opinion, they are entitled to it but the people will decide on the day .
Its ridiculous this same sex marriage debacle, next we will have people marrying their brother’s and sisters.
No we won’t.
Go back to your special place (as provided by the constitution) and leave the important matters to the men, Denise.
No, we really won’t.
What if we did? Are we concerned about birth defects? Because there’s more chance of a birth defect if the woman is 40 than if she’s pregnant by her brother. And I don’t hear anyone campaigning to abolish marriage for the over 40s.
And to add to Emily’s point, while this may come as something of a surprise, it’s not actually marriage that creates children. The real issue with family members marrying is property & inheritance rights though.
Fair play Denise, If their parent’s were gay ,they would not be here .
Today’s non-sensical rambling from @Denise is brought to you by the social media budget of Lolek Ltd.
Denise, it seems unlikey but there are moves afoot in Germany and Switzerland to decriminalise incest. When social conventions are overturned in a confusion of ‘rights’ and ‘entitlements’, no one knows where it will end.
Just a question Denise are you married or happy ?
Vote no or there will be priests marrying altar boys next, or chimps marrying gibbons, or farmers marrying sheep, where will it all stop?!?!?!?! Do you realize just how infantile your point is ? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
I am married to a man and happy. Im not against anyone but marriage is for man and woman in my opinion.We live in a democracy so Im entitled to say that without getting bullied.
No-one’s bullying you Denise, but please just imagine how you would have felt had you been prohibited by law from marrying the person you love.
Don’t worry about the bullies Denise, that is only a tactic they use to try and silence people. Fair play to you for saying what you think.
Well said Denise
Denise Friary……….. No worries yet, it will be animals first, or children
http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/38123/
It’s one thing to voice your opinion, Tony. It’s another thing entirely to prevent other people from living their lives according to their own conscience, where their lives don’t impact on you personally.
No tactics here, put your best case forward and we’d be happy to refute it with logic and reasoning. The problem with this is that there is no logical reason to deny equal rights here. And no, the slippery slope fallacy of chimps marrying baboons down the road is not a good reason. So, in the absence of any good reason whatsoever other than “well that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it” you are left with plain bigotry I’m afraid. So, prove us wrong and lay your reasoning out on the table. The case for equality has been laid out innumerable times
Denise, you are well entitled to speak your mind without being subjected to a tirade of abuse by a gang of would-be liberals. Also, if you feel you are being bullied, that is for you to say, not some other mouthy oul spinster. Fair play to you for sticking to your guns in the face of such shameful abuse.
Jane, stick to speaking for yourself, if Denise says she feels bullied, then that’s how she feels.
That is only your opinion Jane. There are many reasons people will vote no and nobody has any right to bully anyone else for having an opinion they don’t like. It happens on here all the time. I couldn’t give a monkeys if you don’t like my opinion but I’m sure there are many out there who are afraid to speak their mind for fear of being branded a bigot or homophobe.
Jane, by that logic, we shouldn’t take any steps to prevent IS from beheading ‘adulterous’ women, should we, as IS are ‘living according to their conscience’?
I’m struck by the invocation of “logic” by James Onedin, whilst he commits a basis logical error.
The irony of this is mildly amusing.
Anthony Lang….STRANGER DANGER, STRANGER DANGER!!!!!! AL,FO.
Still haven’t seen any coherent points made folks, the only points I seem to hear are “that’s my opinion” and “if I feel bullied you must be a bully”. Come on, lets hear good reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed, still waiting….
Alan, can you hold your breath while you wait? There’s a good chap.
James Onedin, that remark is somewhat lacking in coherence. Chuckling.
Anthony, quick, Ailbhe is calling you from another thread.
James, I’m having difficulty following your reasoning.
Alan R makes a very good point above. Have you actually got a sensible contribution to make on the no side? I’m curious.
@Denise
You’re entitled to your opinion but if you feel that other people challenging that opinion is “bullying” then you probably shouldn’t be commenting on a public forum.
You also can’t say “I’m not against anyone but marriage is for man and woman” in the same breath. It’s a logic fail. You clearly ARE against gay people getting married.
By all means be against marriage for gay people. But don’t say you’re not “against anyone”. If you seek to deny someone the same rights you enjoy from birth just because of your “opinion”, then you very much ARE against them.
Call a spade a spade, Denise. And stand behind your arguments.
When, how and by whom was Denise Friary supposedly bullied?
I have not see any remarks which amounted to bullying, in my opinion.
Alan R
I’ve heard people suggest that the term marriage should remain ‘man + woman’. And they should find another word for same sex marriage eg union… But this “union” would be the very same as marriage.
I am not against SSM by the way. But there is quite a few who are because they feel its changing the meaning of marriage yet they want same sex couples to have the same rights. It would be interesting to hear what people have to say about it though..
Hi James. You talk about Jane bullying but call her an old spinster. Do you see the hypocrisy or will I have to explain it like I did yesterday?
@Sinead
“But there is quite a few who are because they feel its changing the meaning of marriage yet they want same sex couples to have the same rights. It would be interesting to hear what people have to say about it though.”
It’s a fair point, Sinead but it’s really not changing the meaning of marriage. It’s still a civil union between two people (who ideally love each other) and who want to have the security of such a “contract”. I simply have not heard a coherent reason as to WHY marriage is being redefined if gay people can avail.
While heterosexual people may be in the majority, that still does not give them claim over everything. By giving a right to someone else, that right is not taken away from you. The rights simply become more inclusive. And if you feel that your marriage is being “redefined” by gay people getting married, then you have bigger issues.
And most often the people who say such things are confusing matrimony with marriage. The Catholic church will still have the right to marry only Catholic people.
Ailbhe, I utterly resent that. I never, but never called Jane an oul spinster and for you to say I did, is nothing short of despicable.
We can change the meaning of anything or redefine whatever we want as a society. If we didn’t we would still be in the dark ages.
Think it’s time now to ignore the troll ailbhe
James, I might be mouthy but I’m married. In case that confuses you, that means I couldn’t be a spinster.
It’s also not enough for Denise to declare that she feels bullied, when there is no evidence of anyone bullying her here. Disagreeing with someone or pointing out the fallacy in their argument is not bullying. If she takes issue with anyone’s comments, let her report them to the Journal. She’ll be waiting a while to see them deleted though.
Oh I’m SO sorry James. Who is the mouth oul spinster you were referring to so?
Jane, Jane, Jane where and how did I refer to YOU as a mouthy oul spinster?
Tony, there is no valid reason to deny another person the right to marry. If you feel SSM is morally objectionable then don’t marry someone of the same gender. You don’t have the right to inflict your bias on others, however.
James, are you serious? I talked about allowing people to live their lives since they’re not hurting anyone, and you liken that to ISIS? FYI, ISIS do hurt people. A lot of people. Stay classy.
Also, Denise does not have to produce evidence that she has been bullied; if she FEELS bullied, then people should respect that and cut her some slack.
Jane, you spoke about people ‘ living according to their conscience’ and that’s what IS do. You need to be a little less sweeping in your statements if you wish to be seen as a serious contributor.
Well James, at the time you made your charming “mouthy old spinster” comment, Emily and I were the only females who had commented on this thread apart from Denise, to whom you were replying. If it wasn’t at me, I presume it was at Emily?
James, if I FEEL like marrying someone of the same gender, you should respect that and cut me some slack.
Finally James, keep likening gay people to ISIS. That’ll work really well for the No side.
Jane, as far as I’m concerned, you can marry anyone you want, or a few people if you choose. Just don’t expect the whole of society to unfold itself to accommodate your whim.
Jane, Jane, Jane. I referenced IS in relation to YOUR comment, perhaps you missed that point.
Congratulations on your happy marriage Denise. Now imagine that your husband is black, it’s the 1950s and allowing you to marry would supposedly open the door to people marrying their pets or some such and try to picture how infuriatingly asinine such an argument is. If you’ve succeeded in all that, then congratulations – this is what I see every day reading the comments on any gay related news article.
Florence..
Well obviously i do feel that a same sex couple should have all the rights of heterosexual couple. And its so important when there are kids involved.
And i dont at all feel that it impacts on my own marriage. Not one bit.
But its just the TERM marriage which up to recently meant man + woman. I wonder would it make any difference to the ‘dont knows’ if they used ‘union’ instead of marriage.. Maybe not.. Its too late now anyway
I will be voting yes and i believe it will pass..
Why shouldn’t I, James? If society is preventing me from marrying the consenting adult of my choice, why shouldn’t I expect society to change?
Because Jane, the greater good of society might be better protected by not allowing you to indulge your whim.
No answer James???
How so James???
It is apparent that James Onedin is intent on mischief making and distraction from the substantive issue same sex marriage.
James Onedin is contributing nothing of substance to the issue itself. Observe each and all of his comments. You will not see one point of substance.
The inference is clear.
The expression mouth oul spinster is ageist and intentionally mysogynistic but the debate is about same sex marriage and whether or not persons of same sex marriage should be deprived of the opportunity to civilly marry the love of their life.
Let us debate on the merits and that involves ignoring James Onedin unless or until he will make an honest contribution to the substantive issue.
Anthony, you’re right. I propose a boycott of James Onedin’s comments. They’re beneath our notice.
He has nothing better to do. I pity people like him
@Sinead
“But its just the TERM marriage which up to recently meant man + woman. I wonder would it make any difference to the ‘dont knows’ if they used ‘union’ instead of marriage.. Maybe not.. Its too late now anyway”
Honestly? I have no idea if it would make a difference. Though I am flummoxed as to why gay people using the word to describe their state union actually matters to straight people. I simply have not heard a coherent argument as to why it matters. The only argument I’ve heard is “Because marriage has always been between a man and a woman”. That’s not an argument. That’s a flat statement.
I’m also flummoxed by people who refuse to let go of the idea that the world is flat. We do not live in static times. We never have. Language evolves, society changes. People change. No one group of people should get to decide the fate of another.
And as always, and I’m sick saying it, heterosexual people can remain heterosexual, they won’t have to divorce their spouse and marry their budgie and they don’t have to sleep with people of the same gender. They are free to carry on being who they are.
Jane and Ailbhe, I’ve been struck by the good humour, forebearacne and enormous each of you have shown in genuine debate on the issues. It is a pleasure to find myself being challenged to think as a result of your comments and to see insights and perspectives which had not occurred to me.
I took some time out to read and to obtain an overall assessment of the “contributions” of James Onedin and I was taken aback to see that he contributes nothing but sly provocation.
Even if James Ondein was on the Yes side, and he is not, I would expect those on the yes side to disclaim because he shabbily discredits the side which he is on.
I just wonder if there are any on the No side who would dissociate themselves from his disingenuous methods.
I’m still waiting to hear a no argument based on some attempt at sense and rationality. We all know that if there is one, it won’t come from James Onedin.
Jane,
Again that is your opinion. Only one opinion out of many, nothing more.
Oh Tony, you now understand the difference between opinions and facts do you? Strange that you couldn’t grasp that when I told you your opinion of homosexuality not being ‘right’ and ‘normal’ wad nothing more than your opinion, you couldn’t grasp it! Even when I asked you for proof, highlighted your inability to substantiate your claims, it just wouldn’t sink in. You put it down to not ‘being bothered’.
It was quite sad really. Made me very much worry about the intelligence of our citizens and the ability of our educational system. Thankfully now my faith is restored. Thanks Tony, you’ve put my mind at ease!
Jane, boycott my comments if you want, no one is forcing you to comment on them, least of all me. But please, please, please. bring your fanboy Anthony with you, he is ridiculous.
Ailbhe
A bit like you calling people homophobic ! If people have a dislike of LGBT that is their prerogative, and their right, once they are not injuring anyone its none of anyone’s business, unless you are the thought police. You seem to believe that name calling (bullying) is solely your right, people have already let you know they don’t want to hate you so, why do you persist in your perceived right to act as thought police.
A) I do not bully
B) Denying one poryion of society the rights afforded to others has always been harmful.
Have you ever picked up a history book? Put down the comspiracy theories and take a gander. While you’re at it, try imagining being treated as though you are second class. Imagine having less rights and being afraid to show even half as much affection to your partner as most couples.
I’ve been verbally attacked for holding my girlfriend’s hand. I would be refused access to her bedside if she was taken seriously ill. If either of us dies, the other gets nothing without being bankrupt by inheritance taxes.
You won’t even try imagine that. You’ll go on believing your bs fairytales about the new world order. How sad
Ailbhe,
What on earth are you on about ? You must be confusing me with somebody else. I think you need to calm down !
Shall I find a link Tony???
I’d rather not embarass you again…..
Ailbhe
I am a historian ! Your ignorance of history is appalling, that includes history in the making today, your attempts to revise history is even more appalling.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_illuminati_0a.htm
You seem to think fairy’s have a magic wand that makes the world conform to their special cause.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/quotes/
Your fairy dust won’t change the world for you, it will bring you into conflict with the world though. Your ignorance is no excuse for subverting democracy, we have little enough of it.
Subverting democracy?! Ah you’re a looper.
Historian my arse. If you bypass known history and latch on to the fairy stories that make your life a bit more interesting, that’s not being a historian, that’s being desperate. Sad Gerard. Go on, we all know you want to spill sone new world order bs. Go for it. Show us just how crazy you really are.
“Subverting democracy” by a democratic referendum of the people. Gerard, are you away with the fairies?
Gerard, you claim to be a historian and provide a link to a load of guff about the illuminati?! You have zero credibility.
Ailbhe
People are verbally attacked for less than that, you need a tough skin in this world, we are fortunate that we are only wayfarers passing through, as the Buddah said ” We are here to suffer “. If you want to change things, you have to change yourself first, you have to know the control freaks so you can’t be used by them.
gerard devany preaches enlightenment and practices the opposite. Mildly amusing, I think.
Gerard Devaney is accusing LGBT people of bullying and being a “special interest” group tying to subvert democracy, yet he worships Putin like a other people the sky fairy
Be warned, gaymaggedon is nigh!
Je suis WWN.
Ailbhe O’Nolan
No $hit Sherlock ! . . http://dcclothesline.com/2013/11/08/pres-lucifer-using-tax-dollars-train-homosexual-activists-around-world/
Surly you did not believe they were funding you for the good of the children and humanity ?
I have little interest in religion, but I do believe some have had a glance of the future and others will use any minority ” special interest ” groups to subvert democracy, money buys power. Maybe you can give us your views on why LGBT has taken the same path as the Jesuits, get at the children when they are young, for a minority special interest group that comprises only about 4% of the population, why do you want such disproportional influence in the education system ?
Gerard Delaney, that comment definitely smacks of paranoia and fear.
Bahahahaha, you think I’m being funded? I’m not even with an organisation. Gerard and his conspiracy stories again. Know that avian flu is actually chemical warfare? It’s a cheap but effective way of spreading ‘the gay’ but nobody suspects……genius!
Ailbhe
I know your just a sheeple but, that does not excuse you avoiding the questions I asked, are you denying that LGBT is a ” special interest ” group that is funded by the US among others. You have often avoided answering about the rights of children with the same methods, lying by omission and refusing to debate issues that affect many more people than your tiny minority special interest group only draws attention to your pedantic cause.
If you are afraid to debate your cause, people must wonder what you are hiding.
How is wanting the same rights as other citizens a ‘special interest’? What have the rights of children got to do with same sex marriage? Why should a minority not have the same rights as everyone else? Ailbhe is perfectly capable at debate, I’ve seen her debate many different issues on these threads so I don’t think anyone is wondering what she is hiding.
No it is not a special interest bs that you spin. I don’t avoid anything Gerard. I do laugh at your stories though. I worry that you might actually believe them.
Thank you Kelly. He has to pretend these things in a desperate attempt to get the upper hand. He brands me a “sheeple” but also says I am the bully. Such hypocrisy is laughable
LGBT rights are the legitimate and proper concern of us all for the sake of a better society. LGBT rights are not a “special interest”.
Gerard, you mean there’s funding available for fighting for equal rights for all? And here I am doing it for free. I must just believe in equality or something.
Anthony Lang
Only to you and a few others.
Jane Travers
No, funding is only available for the establishments pet projects, like subverting democracy, regime change, war and divide and conquer programs. There is no funding available for human rights issues.
interesting statement there, Gerard, so does that mean that the rights of LGBT people aren’t human rights?
The Journal headline could equally, if not more accurately, read
“The Church of Ireland will not be campaigning AGAINST same sex marriage”
It depends on your perspective.
Why does it matter what dinosaurs in any of the churches think?
Their beliefs are based on biblical bigotry.
John, it should not matter at all but some people, a decreasing number, mindlessly follow the dictates of their religion.
Anthony, should mindless followers be eligible to vote?
John Ward, of course they should be entitled to vote.
Well done this is fantastic vote NO
No.
@Liam: I quite agree, it is fantastic – a religious organisation declining to interfere in a democratic process is a new departure for Ireland.
Good answer, the only reason I asked, was as we’re are not brother and sisters.
Maybe we could go on a date, I feel a conection, I wish you and your husband
All the happiness in the world .
Vote NO
Save the family
Save some families from nothing and abandon others
Sure didn’t the one of the Church of England’s top guys blame the flooding as God’s retribution for homosexuality! Well when your dealing with people with such warped logic how can you take them seriously?
My heterosexual marriage is immensely important to me but, in a public sense, it is diminished by the fact that it is currently a discriminatory institution.
Civil marriage is currently arbitrarily closed to a minority who happen to be oriented to their own gender.
When I see a loving couple, homosexual or heterosexual couple, I see no qualitative difference. I just see love. I see all love, homosexual love or heterosexual , equal in decency, goodness, selflessness and commitment.
Relationships are defined by the mutual commitment, the desire for a life time union and the wish to share a life long commitment, not by gender, fertility and procreative need. It is our love for each other which matters. That is the defining quality.
It should not even be required to be said but a homosexual union is just as valid, good and pure as any heterosexual union.
We are united by love and in love. Love is love, regardless of gender or orientation.
I look forward to the fast approaching day of equality of legal recognition of all civil marriages, homosexual or heterosexual, and the day when society expresses its full acceptance that a person who happens to be gay is just as good and deserving of equality of legal recognition as any person who happens to be heterosexual.
I believe that we are truly all sisters and brothers under the skin, with all shared feelings, emotions, desires, aspirations, longings and intimacy.
Denying the full legal recognition of civil marriage for all offends and hurts many of us who just happen to be heterosexual, even though we are not the ones directly being oppressed and discriminatorily treated.
Equality of civil marriage for all regardless of orientation. The time is arriving. Let’s embrace it and share the joy.
Anthony..
You ole honeydripper. Really, well said though.
Its all about love….
Honeydripper? Love it!
I actually got a bit weepy there :)
I actually blushed when I read the comments. Honey dripping! I deserve that.
For a person of unpromising potential, I had the astonishing good fortune to fall in love with and be loved by someone truly wonderful. It was undeserved and unexpected. It transformed me from a not especially nice and somewhat emotionally disabled individual into understanding empathy and feeling for others.
How could I now wish to inhibit or disminish the love of others when I have been so lucky?
If you knew me in the past, you would not believe that this is what I’ve become.
If someone like me can love and be loved, then I am convinced that better people than me deserve this more and to have their loving relationships fully recognised and celebrated.
Sorry for the sentimality but, even worse than sentimental, I’m actually sincere about this. Now I’m off to hide for a while.
Jeepers Anthony, would you stop! :)
Anthony
I know where you are off to…!!
I fell in love at 37. With a man of a different religion. So i know the struggle of not being “normal”.. As a practising Catholic they thought i’d gone mad!! But luckily they knew it was genuine and 9 yrs later our life is great.
When you fall in love its amazing and life changing. And no one, whatever their colour/sexuality/creed should be denied the security and the commitment of marriage.
I know of a church of ireland family that disowned a son for playing hurling one day. Religions are messed up and exclusive rather than inclusive. Madness
This church is a very small religious institution in Ireland I don’t understand why it’s getting so much media coverage on the issue.
One of the few similarities between extreme lefties and righties is that they have an unhealthy obsession with religion.
It’s the second largest religious grouping in the state, and its clergy can actually get married. We’ve heard plenty from the biggest church, and it’s got nothing to do with their priests.
True Irish republicans understand that there is no place in our society for minorities. The only place where minorities should have control or the dominant voice in society is in Northern Ireland – provided, of course, that that minority is Roman Catholic.
When religious groups have spent centuries oppressing people like you, you tend to view them the same way you might a hungry looking wolf sitting in your living room.
I think that’s a bit unfair, Lee. I’ve seen no coverage of this matter on the RTÉ, Irish Independent or Irish Times websites (I may have missed it on the TV). In fact apart from here on the Journal and the Belfast Newsletter I’ve seen no media coverage of the Church’s statement.
@Lee: I don’t understand why *any* religious organisation is getting so much coverage on this issue. The referendum is to change the laws of the State, not the rules of any religious organisation.
The only reason why religious organisations get so much coverage on such issues is because some people find “religious grounds” and easy and acceptable front for their own bigotry.
Graham, true.
The days of calling those who do not agree with your views are vanishing, because there are same sex couples who object to same sex marriage.
And the name calling anyway is a distraction a tactic by the yes side, its a really good way to get people on side but once they look at it closer there is no sense in it. It does not have the very obvious attribute of reproduction the same sex relations do.
Procreation is not a sine qua non or an essential attribute of valid civil marriage.
It accounts for only 4% of the Republic of Ireland’s believers- a rather small figure thats why I mentioned it. It’s clear what the the main churches views are on it. Regardless of what your beliefs are this is constitutional and since the fifth amendment act in 1972 no religious institution should really have an opinion on anything constitutional. People should be able to make their own choice on what they believe and not swayed by what the media is saying their church is or in this case isn’t saying about a certain matter!
Lee MacConnuibh
4%< is about the amount of LGBT's in Ireland ! Makes you think why someone is spending fortunes putting them in an exceptional position in society when the government pays no attention to the majority of people here, except to fleece them.
@David
So if marriage is all about reproduction will you also campaign for marriage rights to be taken away from heterosexual people who choose not to have children? Or simply can’t?
Wrong your just saying that. Dont call same sex civil ceremony!marriage,when it isn’t.
Marriage has its rightful meaning based on what it is, not what it is not.
Try again because its just like calling all fruit, fruit na forget its an apple or an orange its a piece of fruit
Hahaha, David you’ve finally lost it….
David, did you put that through Google Translate from Swahili?
@David
I’m really not “just saying that”. Plenty of people on the NO side are claiming that marriage should be for man and woman only because marriage is for procreation. But heterosexual people who do not intend to have children or who cannot have children are not denied the right to marry. If the only reason to deny gay people the same right to marry is their ability to procreate, then the same rule must apply to heterosexual people who do not intend or who cannot have children.
Can’t have cake and eat it, my friend.
David – marriage to my mind is the union of two people who love each other. At the end of the day, if you put more emphasis on what hole one partner puts their penis/strap – on in, than the love that those two people share, it already demonstrates the lack of meaning marriage has to you.
The definitions of marriage that matter are……The legal one and……the legal one. Yup. Not David’s understanding. Not any religions understanding. Just the legal one. Sorry David
Ailbhe
Everything the Nazis did in full accordance with their laws and totally legal.
Which laws, the ones they made up as they went along, or human rights law?
By the way, you just Godwinned. Scarlet for ya
Ailbhe
Exactly my point, and now LGBT and its sponsors are doing the exact same.
Lee MacConnuibk
Its about the same size as the LGBT community, and it has not got a hundredth of the attention in the media as they have, so I really can’t see why LGBT should be getting so much propaganda mileage out of the media ?
People are being rounded up, shipped off to their death by a bunh of brainwashed facist Germans?! Ah you really are crazy. I think you need to check yourself in mate.
Are your own intolerances of views other than yours not bigotry Graham?
Gerard, your comments indicate that you are either malicious or unwell.
Try to your use faculty of reason, assuming you possess such a faculty.
I suspect that your comments are motivated by malice. They are clearly phobic.
F?Man, Graham firmly asserts the rights of people. He does not seek to take away rights. His comments contain no quality of bigotry or prejudice. That is self evident from his comments.
Yes perhaps;-)
Ailbhe, when the Third Reich was established, it enacted a series of laws as most governments do. Unfortunately, a lot of these laws were severely prejudicial against minorities such as Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, people with special needs and others. However, all of the Nazi’s actions were legal according to the laws of the Third Reich and that is the point Gerard is making. I don’t think he is suggesting that people will be rounded up and shipped off. I hope not anyway.
His intolerance of other views are none the less bigoted. Because his bigotry is of the ‘liberal’ kind makes it no less bigoted than any other.
F.man, please define the term “liberal bigot” for us. I for one am intrigued to learn what a liberal bigot could possibly be.
Jane, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples views, I deliberately put commas around the word liberal for a reason; because their liberalism is questionable. Those who see their outlook as liberal and the only valid position are the most dangerous bigots of all because their bigotry is evangelical.
F.man…….the first word of your explanation was explanation enough.
F.man, to be liberal means to believe in ‘live and let live’. To be a bigot is precisely the opposite, a bigot wishes to suppress or repress a group of people that the bigot perceives as ‘Other’. It is therefore a contradiction in terms to say ‘liberal bigot’.
I think what you are complaining about is when liberals challenge the views of bigots. I hate to burst your bubble, but challenging a bigot on their repressive views is not bigotry against that bigot, it is a defense of equality.
And the aforementioned ‘liberal’ bigot might be just a bit slow on the uptake too.
I think you need to look again at the literal meaning of bigot Jane, your comment suggests you don’t understand what the term means. It is little wonder that the term gets thrown about by those that consider themselves ‘liberal.’
You can be as afraid as you like but it is a misapprehension that you can burst any bubble based on a misunderstanding of what a word means.
F.man, the free dictionary has an interesting snippet of etymology on the word:
“English borrowed bigot from French with the sense “religious hypocrite” in the early 17th century. In English, the term also came to be applied to persons who hold stubbornly to any system of beliefs, and by extension, persons who are intolerant of those that differ from them in any way.”
I put it to you that the term bigot refers far more clearly to those who oppose change, ie marriage equality, for religious or ‘traditional’ reasons, far more than it ever could for those who are progressive and in favour of change.
Discuss.
You can put it what way you like Jane but can’t change the meaning of the word no matter how many hoop you jump through.
Peter Hitchens puts it more eloquently and succinctly than iI ever could.
“Liberals use the bigotry of defamation of an opposite opinion rather than the willingness to listen to it or be prepared to debate it. Liberal bigotry is worst of all, because it thinks it’s so enlightened!”
F.man, I’m campaigning for change and equality. You’re campaigning for the status quo for vague reasons that you can’t quite articulate and argue, and the best you can do in your defence is to call me a bigot? Can you actually come up with a decent argument against marriage equality?
I am not campaigning for anything of the sort Jane, please point me to a comment of mine from which you can reach such a conclusion.
I didn’t call anyone a bigot, the “liberals” seem to have the monopoly on that activity.
I have not made any arguments for or against homosexual marriage.
Ailbhe
Yes, it happened.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html
History does not repeat itself ! We keep repeating the same old mistakes.
Ok F.man, I’m officially confused. If you’re not against marriage equality, then what are we arguing over?
I wasn’t arguing. I was commenting on the tenor of the debate and particularly the intolerance of the pro side to accept there is a valid alternative point of view.
Ok F.man, I’m still confused. So your only beef is that people like me aren’t listening to the other side of the debate? Here’s the thing; the No to equality side haven’t produced another side to the debate. They’ve gone on about tradition, and family values, and people wanting to marry their goats or their cars next, and paedophilia, and won’t anyone think of the children; but they have yet to come up with an actual argument against marriage equality, other than the fact that it makes them feel a little icky. When (if) they do, i will hear their argument and debate against it.
In the meantime, if you don’t like me shooting down arguments that aren’t arguments, i frankly couldn’t give a damn.
Jane, my original post was about Graham using the charge of bigot while displaying bigoted views himself.
The Pro side uses the charge in a rhetorical fashion whilst being unaware of their own bigotry.
If someone is going to accuse another of bigotry don’t you think they should show tolerance not an opposite bigotry?
I don’t think that it is fair and reasonable to expect tolerance of naked prejudice.
At the end of the day, the pro Yes side wish to expand the right to marry.
The pro No side wish to maintain the current restrictiveness based on religious grounds, or an unwillingness to revise the dictionary meaning or because they regard a same sex relationship as not deserving the full legal recognition of civil marriage.
The Pro Yes side is expansive and liberal.
The Pro No side is conservative, restrictive and reactionary according to the result which it wishes to achieve.
F.man, this is becoming circular. See my last comment to you, the same comment applies again.
It’s one thing to have a view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman; I don’t mind that. It’s another thing to use your opinion to vote to deny equal rights to others. As far as I’m concerned, you can dislike something for yourself, but you have no right to deny a course of action to others just because you wouldn’t want it for yourself. That, in a nutshell, is the issue I have with the No side.
Anthony, Jane.
Be “expansive and liberal” in a real sense. Question your own ‘liberalism’.
http://theweek.com/articles/449424/are-real-liberals-gay-marriage
F.man, that rather long-winded article does not contradict in the slightest what I have already been saying. “The hostile groups need not love or even respect one another’s vision of the good. They need only agree to disagree in relative civility and peace.” Exactly. People don’t have to agree with gay marriage or want it for themselves, but they need to be tolerant of the wishes of others. In return, I’ll be tolerant of their opposing beliefs.
Everything you are saying seems to be argument for argument’s sake.
Gerard, your latest link has nothing to do with your earlier Godwinning. It appears you are struggling to adhere to your own line of bs
Vote No.
Save men from being emasculated.
Save women from being efemulated.
Nothing against Gay people whatsoever.
I have many gay friends and relations.
However the government roll out these things to suit their own agendas.
Where does all this end up?
With an asexual population?
With people (gay and straight) getting families to order?
With not being able to tell the difference between men and women because of the way they dress?
It can’t be denied that fellas spend more time in the bathroom these days than women, putting on makeup, doing their hair and waxing their parts.
Genuine questions?
I hope I don’t offend.
@David
I don’t have the time to unpack your statement or to show you how many assumptions you make in error. But please don’t say “Nothing against gay people whatsoever” and then attempt to deny gay people the same rights you enjoy.
Stand behind your opinion. If you have it, be proud of it. Don’t try to water it down. Also, you’re confusing homosexuality with a redefinition of gender roles in heterosexuals. They are two separate issues.
Gay people are already getting married in several countries. Civil partnerships are already happening here. NOTHING has changed for ANYONE else. You’re still free to be as heterosexual as you please. You’re free to not wear makeup, not to “order a family” (and I can’t even begin to tell you what’s wrong with that assumption) and to not wax your bits.
The population WILL NOT be asexual. That’s simply a ridiculous assumption to make. If gay people already had that influence (which they don’t) it’s not going to be made any more powerful if they get married. Marriage is not a superpower.
I might not like the idea of someone being against marriage for gay people, but I really find it appalling that so many people in the NO camp are so misinformed in their choice.
Wow david. Your poor wife, doing your hair and trimming your bits is considered a negative. What has the world come to when men are looking after their appearance, It’s awful isn’t it?
Yeah Daz, and all this gender blurring is dreadful stuff. Why, I’m a woman with short hair who wears jeans! Whatever next?
There’s looking after your appearence.
and there’s
Back sack and crack?
Waxing Eyebrows?
Eyeshadow?
Multiple piercings?
A gallon of gel in your quiff?
A few Litres of face products?
A bit of fake Geordie shore Tango?
A bare chest and legs?
Throw in a few tattoos?
And don’t forget the Rylan beard?
All available and much more at your local male beautician.
You’re having trouble with the next generation coming through. It’s quite common for the previous one to not understand it David. It’ll all be ok. Let the young ones at it. You had your day.
David I’m afraid it’s already too late if you’re afraid that my marrying my partner will make you less of a man than me.
“You’re having trouble with the next generation coming through. It’s quite common for the previous one to not understand it David”
Where is that quote from?
OK Magazine?
Just 17?
I’m a good father thank you Daz.
I had my day eh?
Every day is my day, thank you.
“Let the young ones at it”?
Let the vested interests brainwash another generation of weak dependant vegetated zombies?
My family won’t be partaking.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I’m confident of my sexuality Graham, thank you.
Enjoy your wedding.
Your comment was about male grooming. You can raise your son to be a hardworking competent and independent man. It does not mean he can’t look good while he is at it. If he is anything like most young people, I’m sure you won’t have a say on how he presents himself. If women want muscles and tans and all else you listed, then I’m sure that’s what he will want. I’m just saying I’m sure you can remember your father giving out about you at something. I know my father can and yet he like yourself can’t understand some things today.
My comment is about devious corporate vested interests running agendas to emasculate boys and young men and turn them against their own families.
“Male Grooming”?
Male grooming consists of shaving (your face), cutting nails and getting a haircut (head hair) from time to time.
The practices I listed above are more akin to some kind of perverted cult activities.
What type of person promotes these practices to children?
David, what “devious corporate vested interests” are you referring to in relation to male grooming?
Also, why does it bother you so much if other men choose to wax, moisturise, etc? How does that affect you and your life? Are people holding you down and forcibly waxing your sack, back and crack?
I’m an adult Jane.
I can deal with “people tying to hold me down and tying to forcibly wax my sack, back and crack”?
I do have a big issue with demonic corporate interests trying to sexualise children though and the disillusioned clones who support these vile capers.
David, I am completely against the sexualisation of children.
Now, what does that have to do with marriage equality, which is between consenting adults?
Ahh would ya quit being such a drama queen. Emasculation and turning them against their families. What are you on, What utter nonsense. I’ll leave ya to your doom and gloom David. scary new world of beauticians corrupting the world. Well that is a new one.
What will the Iona cult have to say about this? Canon laws influenced by gratian, or didache are just skewed views not from original text.further proof of what happens to good in the hands of evil people
Behead the infidels
Is it possible for any group or individual to have a neutral stance on this issue?
Of course. Many will choose to abstain or spoil their vote.
Yikes!!!! Ailbhe!!!! Better be careful what I say here……….
Probably yes. Strict comments policy and all that
And there was me thinking The Journal had published the image of The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) because it saw itself as being int the vanguard of free speech. Free speech is welcome here, as long as it agrees with the dominant (so-called) liberal agenda. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Yes James, it’s all a big conspiracy. Bow to your liberal overlords or suffer the wrath ot being…….deleted, dun dun dunnnnnnn
Ailbhe, I’ve had loads of comments deleted.
Oh my god, the gaypocalypse has started!!!!!
James, You mean to say that the comments on here do not represent the worst of your capacity?
Somehow, I’m not surprised that some of your comments are deleted.
Why not start addressing the substance of the issue. Have you a rational and coherent, non-abusive and respectful reason for wishing to deprive a loving couple of the same sex the opportunity to marry each other in a civil marriage recognised and respected by the State?
James “…I’ve had loads of comments deleted.”
Somehow I don’t feel anyone is going to miss them.
Graham……who asked you?
I thought you didn’t mind people responding to your comments? Which is it, make up your mind.
Ailbhe, I thought Jane had commanded a boycott of my comments? Are you actually acting on your initiative?
As always James. Unlike what Gerard thinks, I’m not commanded by others
Good for you then. Ciao.
You’re going? But you avoided my questions further up the thread. I was waiting for an answer with fervor. I was nice enough to answer all your questions yesterday evening. There’s that selfish streak again
Ailbhe
No one said you personally were funded, or would even know if you were, your cause is though. Your attempts to distract people from this issue shows that your cause is corrupt, and that you are aware of this.
Ailbhe
You do not answer questions, you avoid them, like a true troll.
I’m the troll?! What questions have I avoided. Go on, fire them at me. And any related to your conspiracy stories are not true.
Like I said, I have no association with any group, organisation or otherwise. I’m a member of a rugby team. Does that count? You’re actually crazy. Or know you need to make up complete bs. Either way, it’s pathetic!
Gerard, I have followed Ailbhe’s comments on many articles. She is the opposite of a troll. Your bizarre accusation is totally unfounded and untrue. It reflects poorly on you.
Try to engage in rational debate, if you are able.
Ailbhe
Of course you would believe there is no interference in politics by LGBT, not in Russia, not anywhere else.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/04/09/usaid-launches-partnership-to-promote-lgbt-rights/
Rugby teams don’t fund the campaign, I asked you why LGBT and its sponsors have taken the Jesuit route to education, “catch them when they are young “. Parents have a right educate their children as they see fit.
So long as LGBT is funded as a front by these people it will always be suspect.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/as-many-as-ten-serving-members-of-uk-parliament-house-of-lords-are-active-pedophiles
Homosexuality and paedophilia are entirely separate and distinct.
Seeking to connected them and to cite members of the UL parliament as paedophiles is false, dishonest and irrelevant.
Gerard, they haven’t taken ‘the jesuit’ stance on education. That’s another conspiracy theory you believe to make life more interesting.
Isn’t it ironic that a minority religious sect in Ireland call itself the Church of Ireland.
Going by the No side comments so far, the anti Referendum are unable to muster up even a passable rational argument against same sex marriage.
Hopefully, the outcome of the Referendum will be based on reason, not prejudice.
By choosing to stay unbiased or neutral is to choose the side of the oppressor.
Anthony if you only knew, what you say is recieved by people reading your opinions you would alter your message.
It does not come across well.
Says he lad telling us we will all burn in hell….
Aah Ailbhe I never said you would burn in hell, that there is the error, my faith is based on salvation. if you consider your perception of Scripture to be the correct interpretation, where or who gave you this?
The biblical teachings ARE a recommendation. Its quite clear if you bothered to look into the teachings that your interpretation is lacking, the choice is clear, you have a choice to choose which you believe to be true.
I just want to say that anytime we have some kind of conversation, you go down the bad religious or catholic route or pink unicorns or the big daddy in the sky, to undermine most of what I say and its not a great defence.
You see you believe everything that exists in creation came out of nothing. And that could be as fairytale as it can probably get.
I’ve heard cosmologists and sciencetists trying to explain something from nothing and its very hard to imagine, and believe me I’ve tried.
You dont look at a chair or a car or a rabit and think, ooh look theres a car it came from nothing, yet you can make a great leap and say, no creation was just from chance.
Even with all the natural laws in physics that exist.
Dont you think it strange that all of the inventions man has made, from cars to drugs to computers actually would never have been created without a mind.
The complexity of man just boggles the mind.
If you can’t say the universe came from nothing then the same should apply to God, no?
Just because it can’t be explained yet does not mean you should drop god into the unknown parts. People believed in many gods over time. Where is zeus now, people were put to death for opposing his will and yet now not a sign of him.lived on mt .olympus but when people got up there, there was not a sign. All the ancient pagan Gods,? Oh they are not real,but yours is? Why? Because your parents told you so, as did theirs. Makes no sense to me but if you’re happy at it, I hope it all works out as you planned and that he/she/it has the gates open for ya at the end.
Your ignoring something from nothing. Its gathering momentum in the scientific field.
Its an attempt at an antidote for a god but its logically flawed.
Same argument remains for you and your god does it not? I’ll wait for the science if you don’t mind. And it may be that we never know but I will not shackle myself to one religion of many to give me comfort. It wouldn’t give me comfort anyway as I think the idea of everlasting life is a horrific notion. But each to their own I guess.
Ahh science the god of the athiest, imperical evidence, have you imperical evidence for imagination or thinking as far as science is concerned you cant hold or touch either. Back to you.
Yes there is. Chemistry and synaptic biology will tell you all you need to know David. A little research would prevent you feom making a total fool of yourself…..again
This argument does nothing as proof of your god. If your logic is that things exist you can’t see , will i have to accept all Gods and also I have to include vampires, unicorns, goblins and all other manner of imaginary things. Where do you draw the line? I can’t provide empirical evidence but there is enough evidence I witness in day to day life for me to decide they exist.
I presume David you don’t believe in all Gods that ever were imagined. So I just decided to believe in one less than you.why did you choose the religion you have over others? If you don’t believe all other peoples religions then should you expect everyone to listen to you Woffle about Scriptures? Yours to me is as much nonsense as the next one and all the others of the past. But if it comforts you, crack on with it.variety is the spice of life eh.
SDP,SDP.
have your say