A
anon98328916
Guest
That was awful. The baker was entitled to his religious views and it should have been respected.
- Status
N
Nic1099
Guest
Now there are calls to repeal the 8th Amendment to our Constitution that provides protection for the unborn. According to the leftist TD Paul Murphy, the ‘same-sex marriage’ referendum was “more than just about gay rights”, it symbolised people demanding “a break with the oppression of the past” and “a different sort of society”.
thejournal.ie/repealing-8th-amendment-referendum-2126238-May2015/
Please pray for Ireland and that the last remaining protection for innocent human life will be maintained. Laity and clergy need to wake up!!
thejournal.ie/repealing-8th-amendment-referendum-2126238-May2015/
Please pray for Ireland and that the last remaining protection for innocent human life will be maintained. Laity and clergy need to wake up!!
J
jtauke
Guest
So much for the ever loving God huh?
Remind me again how the parable of the prodigal son ends? Does the father beat, punish, maim, and/or kill the son on account of his sinful acts?
People die in natural disasters every year, think all those that died were being punished by God? Ridiculous.
B
bigblu
Guest
Finally some common sense on here.
J
jtauke
Guest
Much obliged
One more comment about the natural disasters that will “strike” Ireland in furious retribution…Will they selectively target yes voters? Or will God just be indiscriminately killing the no voters too?
Cause I would pay to see an selective disaster…
M
minkymurph
Guest
I don’t if this been mentioned on this thread as I haven’t read all the replies, so forgive me if I’m saying something that has gone before.
An issue Ireland faces is the fact that unlike many other western democracies, there is no provision of separation of Church and State in the constitution. The UK is also perceived as problematic as it continues to have an established Church headed by a monarch, and a certain number of places have been reserved for the Church of England in the Upper House (Lords). These factors are now viewed a significantly problematic. Thus there has been a concerted political drive to separate Church and State more and more.
An issue Ireland faces is the fact that unlike many other western democracies, there is no provision of separation of Church and State in the constitution. The UK is also perceived as problematic as it continues to have an established Church headed by a monarch, and a certain number of places have been reserved for the Church of England in the Upper House (Lords). These factors are now viewed a significantly problematic. Thus there has been a concerted political drive to separate Church and State more and more.
P
paulrxp
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Where is that explicit provision of separation for Church and State in the US Constitution?
The more important question to me is how does the judicial and democratic system draw a line and define what is moral and what is not? How, without a reference point can it justify granting one group a right, while totally violating another group if some type of morality is not used as the standard?
I’ve already asked this question, and I challenge anyone to with sound reason or however way you want to go about it to give me a good explanation why a homosexual couple can marry and a polygamist cannot. The marriage between the polygamist involves more than one spouse. So what? If we remove Christian morality from legal argument, then the polygamists rights must honored. Incidentally , has any homosexual been jailed for marrying like polygamist have?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Perhaps, perhaps not. But, so-called gay “marriage” will create a burden on the state that will it make less prepared to deal with external threats.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Those are not real marriages. Marriage between two persons of the same gender is impossible regardless of what any government says.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
A lot of heterosexual marriages aren’t real marriages either avoiding to Catholic tradition.
Purposely childless marriages from the start.
Marriages with prenups (with few exceptions)
“Open” marriages
Etc etc
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
The legal system cares nothing about “morality”. It does not even care about “justice”. It is simply a legal system, nothing else.
There would be no good reason. There are some open marriages, where a "ménage à trois " is practiced, if not “de jure”, but “de facto”. They are just as irrelevant to the society as the marriage of homosexuals. It is simply a non-issue outside the ultra-orthodox Christians.
The point is that there is no pressing reason to consider polygamy or polyandry (people always forget about polyandry…
I wonder why?). There is simply no demand for it. It might create some procedural problems, but those could be overcome. But if the Muslim or Mormon population would become the majority, then this question might arise in earnest, and then it would become a valid issue. We shall cross that bridge when we get there.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I’d counter that separation is more important for the church than the state.
And using God or religion for morality can be problematic. Who’s interpretation of God? A lot of verses are quoted out of context to fit individual goals.
[Qupte]I’ve already asked this question, and I challenge anyone to with sound reason or however way you want to go about it to give me a good explanation why a homosexual couple can marry and a polygamist cannot. The marriage between the polygamist involves more than one spouse. So what? If we remove Christian morality from legal argument, then the polygamists rights must honored. Incidentally , has any homosexual been jailed for marrying like polygamist have?
I personally have no major objection to polygamy provided all are aware and of age, except that the divorces from such arrangements are beyond what the family courts can rationally handle. And as far as I’ve seen many of the polygamist arrest involve underage women or other abuses more so than just multiple marriage.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That would be the case.
However, this thread is about so-called gay “marriage”. I don’t see why gay rights activists always have to run to the failings of straight marriages to justify their positions. If so-called gay “marriage” is so great, its supporters and participants shouldn’t need to rely criticism of other failed or incomplete relationships to support their own.
Besides, marriages where Christians get pre-marital counseling and pray together daily account for about 1 divorce out of 39,000 in the USA.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
There seems to be a disturbing trend with polygamy and the abuse of minors. In fact, once one gets outside of the traditional, biological family, the risk for child sex abuse seems to increase.
It would make for an interesting study…
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
This isn’t about Christian marriage. This is about civil marriage, as that is vastly different than religious marriage. As such, given the disconnect between civil marriage and children plus the benefits to the couples and society on general.
For instance, marriage creates a severe penalty for infidelity. Reducing the number of partners reduces the spread of STDs that are rampant in those groups and rising in the general population.
J
JimG
Guest
Marriage creates a severe penalty for infidelity? It used to, when adultery was illegal, and when adultery was grounds for divorce and such things as infidelity could be properly cited, and damages sought. But no more. Now, there’s just no fault divorce and who am I to judge.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
If civil marriage is going to be different than religious marriage because it’s all about how people feel, sexual urges and not raising kids, then frankly civil marriage should be abolished as dead weight because in such cases it is of no value to the state. States are not obligated to pick up the tab for personal indulgences in sexual matters.
Not in the places where so-called gay “marriage” is legal. In fact, many of the same voices who support so-called gay “marriage” think adultery is between “two consenting adults” as merely a choice. There’s even some murmurs that this behavior is actually a good thing.
The idea controlling of STDs is a very poor reason to allow so-called gay “marriage” considering the promiscuous behavior involved in homosexual relationships. In any case, those who are sexually promiscuous are not always the best candidates for
immediate fidelity—there is a need to change the behavior, which is never quite so easy.
I also very much doubt that a gay “marriage” will impact the disease rates much, since quite frankly, the underlying motives for such a thing are selfish at heart.
Furthermore, gay divorce rates are either comparable to or higher than heterosexual ones.
Besides, there is mounting evidence that gay relationships put children at a disadvantage.
So, if disease prevention is the concern, the best option isn’t a “marriage” under what I think we all know would be false pretenses, but rather taking measures to prevent getting the disease, such as refraining from homosexual acts and other promiscuous sexual behavior.
P
paulrxp
Guest
You’re clearly wrong in that opinion. You only need to examine European history to see that modern Europe was built on the foundations of Christendom. The partnership between Church and State worked for the most part. One helped the other. The State didn’t have to do it on its own because it could not, and same for the Church. The unsung hero’s of the Dark Ages were the Catholics monks who were the innovators and did the heavy lifting when the States were mired in revolts, wars and chaos.
What happened to those pagan/Godless nations, where are their remnants today? I can show you today the fruits of Christianity, show me the non-Christian legacy.
Here’s a case where you’d be correct:
"Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church"
Their State church would be mandated to conduct the weddings. Proponents of SSM were adamant this would not happen. Now who’s rights are being violated?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Well, I don’t see what was stopping them from coming before. And, a lot of the new revenue will be offset sooner rather later because so-called gay “marriage” is just going to be a defunct government program, and like most government programs, it will fall on its head and cost people more money to fix it.What now for Ireland?
Oh The tourism industry is so excited!
Talking about the 100’s of 1000’s of euros they will pour into attracting gay people to come to Ireland.
We are such a mecca of enlightenment now.
Oh, the money it will bring to our country!
:banghead:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Proponents of so-called gay “marriage” are just like the “two consenting adults” crowd. They promise “they’ll help” and then vanish into thin air or laugh and say “well, if they REALLY want it, who am I to stop them?”.
It is really so surprising that people who take the easy way out on one issue aren’t going to spend time and energy fulfilling a promise that requires work or going against the winds of society?
- Status