Perhaps it picked me dear soul. Needless to say I totally agree with you. It is indeed troubling times.. oh, sad times maryrose, ah, what beautiful name I must add. God Bless! Prayer is the way!
I am so sickened and disheartened about this looming referendum. I've just seen in my local paper that the Yes Equality campaign is launching a whole host of events in my local area, including a "Family" Day (a misnomer if ever there was one) in a beautiful park which my son's father helped to create last year out of an empty car park. Music, face-painting, ice-cream and speeches are promised... this just breaks my heart. Also an event in our local shopping centre with lots of media presence and local celebrities, to take place on a Sunday, no less... I am sickened to the pit of my stomach. How did our country come to this? How did our world come to this? Please, please, all you Irish forum members: if you go to www.keepmarriage.org you can sign up for info about the activities of the NO campaign or you can volunteer to get involved by handing out leaflets (7 Great Reasons to Keep Marriage as is) hanging posters organising meetings fundraising Non-Irish, you can simply make a donation to the campaign like I did today. This is literally the only group officially campaigning for a No vote, and it is up against a massive opposition from the Yes campaign. The No campaign is virtually nothing but grassroots. This morning after mass I was asked to distribute leaflets and, faced with the potential of confrontation, I have to admit that even that simple task is a daunting one. Courage needed, please pray and fast for all those on the front lines of this battle!!
Thank you for caring and sharing, Adoremus - God Bless you! It is true, that it will take a lot of willpower; determination to make a stand in the midst of what might seem like hissing vipers intent on hitting out least you hold their misguided, disingenuous views, but we must witness for Jesus; for all that is scared; good; holy: we must endeavour and persevere were we can, and must! I understand not everyone is fortunate to have the full capacitate of their limbs - or - in good mantel health - or - youthfulness; some may feel left out; unimportant: but do not be worried, stressed, alarmed as - there are many other noteworthy ways you can air your feelings, some of which Adoremus, has posted above. Do what you can! God Bless!
GOD BLESS CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE RIP - A GREAT DEFENDER OF THE FAMILY - Look at what he had to put up with during his later years: The question is - not if, but when this will happen to Irish Church-goers post May 22 - regardless of the referendum outcome.
Irish gay man Paddy Manning says opposing same sex marriage referendum is not homophobic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=383&v=A4iqhU24phs
Amazing speech. Paddy is right. It's a debate we're not allowed to debate. Insane. I've been following him on Twitter for ages, always has an interesting, well informed opinion.
Excellent miker. That belongs in the daily chuckle thread too, love it. Anybody know if it's true what I've heard that going forward after the referendum, seeing as "man and wife" will be seen as medieval, backward, discriminatory, homophobic, anti-progress and just plain bigoted, "partnerships" on official documents (tax, census etc) will be listed as "Partner A and partner B"? I've a sickening feeling, that if so, it's a crazy yet strangely almost inevitable possibly for a " Partner C and D Partner E...F....etc" Wasn't there a "marriage" between three men in Asia recently? It's definitely possible.
Marriage is not putty in the hands of the dominant political paradigm http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/m...-of-the-dominant-political-paradigm-1.2182576 A constitutional right to same-sex marriage seems plausible on first viewing. Yet it does not stand up to critical analysis. Every right requires a justification. Standing behind the claimed right to same-sex marriage is the following proposition: marriage is the legal recognition of a loving commitment between adults. Let us call this the “adult partnership” model. Clearly, the adult partnership model of marriage cannot justify a law restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. As former tánaiste Eamon Gilmore put it in April 2013, “[It is] not the role of the State to pass judgment on who a person falls in love with, or who they want to spend their life with.” But equally this view of marriage cannot justify restricting it to couples only. What principled basis could a Yes campaigner for “marriage equality” have for such a restriction? Appeals to dictionary definitions? Tradition? Religious convictions? The idea that polygamous or polyamorous relationships involving three or more consenting adults espouse a lesser quality of love than the love couples have for one another? Each of these reasons rebounds to undermine the Yes campaigner’s position. The “marriage equality” view has no principled reason for discriminating between different types of consensual and committed relationship. For similar reasons, the Yes campaigner cannot explain why marriage is an inherently sexual union. It may sound odd to argue that platonic relationships could be recognised as marriages, but, on the adult partnership model, why shouldn’t they be? Again it’s not sufficient for the Yes campaigner to assert that marriage just is a sexual union and that’s it. This is no argument at all. It is also inconsistent with the Yes campaigner’s frequent assertion that marriage evolves according to social circumstance. It is certainly possible to envisage circumstances in which co-dependent elderly siblings or a carer-dependent relationship would stand to benefit from the rights and entitlements marriage confers. These people often exhibit profound commitment to and love for one another so why should they be denied access to marriage? What justifies this inequality – the idea that the State should view sexual love as superior to other types of love? Finally, the Yes campaigner cannot justify the State expressly supporting marriage above other relationship types in its constitutional, tax and other laws. Why should the State regulate and promote a relationship defined solely by the presence of a strong emotional bond between consenting adults? No one thinks that the State should do the same for friendships, for instance, however close or strong they are. It seems puzzling to consider that a loving commitment between two men amounts, through that love alone, to “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society”, as Article 41.1.1 of our Constitution describes the married couple. It is not surprising that many of the more reflective supporters of redefining marriage argue that, as a matter of consistency, marriage should be removed to the sphere of private contract law. On each of these points the Yes campaigner’s partnership model of marriage founders: marriage as a union of two, marriage as inherently sexual, and marriage as worthy of express State support. A coherent explanation of all these characteristics of marriage is only possible under an alternative view, the view that marriage is a comprehensive inter-personal union. The kind of union contemplated here is not just a union of hearts and minds, but a union of bodies too. It is a union whereby persons freely commit to becoming “one body” or “one flesh” with one another. This type of commitment is possible only between two people, and is only possible where the two people are of different yet complementary sex. By its very nature this union – and only this union — explains the rationale for the laws relating to consummation of marriage and prohibition of marriage between family members. And because this is precisely the kind of union oriented towards children and providing those children with both a mother and a father, this union deserves special State support and recognition. This view of marriage is not confined to our own Constitution. It is also enshrined in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That article considers marriage as a man-woman union, as linked to the founding of a family, and as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society . . . entitled to protection by society and the State.” Nothing in this view of marriage supposes that gay persons are lesser than other persons. Current marriage law unjustly discriminates against neither gay relationships nor platonic relationships nor polygamous or polyamorous relationships. One can consistently and passionately believe in both the fundamental equality of all human beings and the unique nature of marriage as a union of sexual difference. One can also reject the risible contention that sexual difference is some arbitrary legal requirement for marriage, similar to how racial identity was under the (secular) law of certain states in the modern era. Marriage should not be putty in the hands of the dominant political paradigm. It has its own integrity, nature and rationale. By contrast, and despite initially seeming plausible, the claimed constitutional right to same-sex marriage is arbitrary, incoherent and irrational. Dr Thomas Finegan, is a member of the advisory committee to Mothers & Fathers Matter
The Yes side are now using children to propagate their agenda, as if they really understand the changes being made: http://www.independent.ie/life/fami...ld-be-able-to-love-anybody-else-31156002.html
It just displays how sinister the campaign is when they start using children to further their campaign. One commenter under the video showing the children made an interesting observation, he said it was like a Labour Party remake of "Give up yer auld sins"!
WARNING: Blood pressure medication may be required to read this: Some words from the (silenced!) Fr Flannery. ( Represents/Founder of the Association of Catholic Protestants) *Eucharist for (active? Rather ambiguous statement?) Homosexuals "It is not as if they are actively excluding people who are in second relationships, or our gay sisters and brothers who want to take an active part in the local church, but it would be very refreshing if we had a local diocesan pastoral letter which states that such people are welcome at the Eucharist." *"A further problem with our Irish Bishops is their failure to create clear blue water between themselves and the more extreme conservative groups. This has been very damaging in our social debates and the current debate on Marriage Equality is yet another sad example. The message once again, as it has been for generations when anything to do with sex is up for debate, is a firm ‘NO’. To people of a gay orientation, to their parents, grandparents and families, this stance of the Church is often heard as a further layer of condemnation following on from “disordered state’ and ‘intrinsic evil’." I'm assuming "the more extreme conservative groups" are practicing Catholics, ie us. A swipe at Pope Benedict XVI with the 'intrinsic evil' and 'winter' remarks. Oh, and by the way, the ACP, on their site said, the were not taking a side (!) In the YES v NO gay marriage referendum. From reading the following article, which side do YOU think they support? If the Catholic church doesn’t urgently signal a change in attitude, I fear for its future http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/reform-catholic-church-2062521-Apr2015/?utm_source=shortlink
soon they will re-write the Lords prayer! our transgender father....my will be done on earth and heaven.... do as we say this day.....hopefully they wake up soon
The A.C.P or the 'Association of Catholic Protestants' are on the wrong side of History just like their 'iconic' forefather Martin Luther. Perhaps they might adopt him as their 'patron saint'. Don't know why but the ACP & their followers make me really angry and remind me of Christ's words of 'whitened sepulchres'. Because they are a bunch of liberal 'do-gooder' social workers. They are cowards too. They haven't the courage to leave the Church despite their putrid hatred of the Catholic faith. Glad I got that one off my chest!
"Yes" side seen removing vote No posters in Dublin: http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/116.jpg http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/213.jpg
