An Irish Reader on the Gay “Marriage” Push in Ireland, as well as Other Stuff

An Irish Reader on the Gay “Marriage” Push in Ireland, as well as Other Stuff May 20, 2015

He writes:

Saw Leah Libresco in conversation with Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland on YouTube.

Personally I think the man has a lot of motivation in anti Catholicism but heck. One thing that struck me is the veritable absence of philosophical dialogue in Ireland. (“Ye what?!”) It is over 20 years since I heard Neoplatonism & Kant mentioned in the same breath. How refreshing!!

Plus a link to a brief video of a nun who has dedicated 50+ years to caring for people suffering from addiction, indeed, some of whom were former parishioners and family friends. She speaks with great gentleness & age old wisdom.

She speaks in reference to the upcoming Marriage Referendum to change the Irish Constitution.

Strangely a lot of money has been spent promoting same sex ideology, not only from US billionaire Chuck Feeney – whose foundation has pumped in a near billion into the Emerald Isle; but also the Dutch government & the British Council.

The No campaign isn’t supported by such huge finances. The Irish Bishops have attempted to take a hands off approach but in response to letters from people looking for clarification have started to speak clearly & compassionately.

But some tell me the atmosphere is tense, with some branded as bigots & homophobes. Some are afraid to air their preferences for fear of being ostracised or face public ridicule. Indeed posters advocating no change in definition of marriage have removed or defaced across the country. Social media is awash with #MarRef and from a young teacher I’ve heard his town many businesses are “encouraged” to show their support for marriage equality.

It seems a different place & a different time full of badges, lapelpins & flags & posters. No doubt you can guess where & when.

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen is among the vocal proponents calling for a No vote and seems with many to make cogent arguments in media debates. Indeed the more people have the opportunity to unpack the argument for marriage equality they begin to realise the consequences for society & Ireland’s future generations. Albeit, support is growing by word of mouth but against slick politicised campaigning fuelled with oodles of cash it’s a walk towards the Red Sea. But at this crucial juncture the Isle of Erin doesn’t need American millions of dollars but the grace of prayer to stir people to wake up from this matrix like state of groupthink.

Can I recommend to you and your readers a site mentioned by a young mother of four. They were gracious enough to includes a prayer for all Christians, not just Catholics.

http://novena4ireland.wordpress.com/

It is wonderful how a movement that completely owns the commanding heights of state, media, and financial powerhouses still paints itself as a beleaguered but plucky band of underdogs who just, gosh darn it, want a fair shake.

Meanwhile, not everyone is drinking the Kool Aid:

Marriage is the sole institution on planet earth that binds a mother and a father to children who have, by nature, a *right* to a mother and father. Nobody in the gay “marriage” debate gives a thought to the natural right children have to a mother and father.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph

    The climate here is dripping with anti-Catholicism… it’s odd to see. It’s almost like the Ireland before the Revolution. The elite, the ones who run the country, the media are all vehemently and unabashedly anti-Catholic. I’d say that a large majority of the ‘Yes’ side are, if not openly, subconsciously committed to using this referendum as a way to shove it down the throat of the Church… just to hear them speak.
    .
    I’m worried what is going to happen to practicing Catholics once this referendum succeeds (and it will… too much power behind it and way to much media supported propaganda). I watched a debate last night on the telly. The ‘Yes’ panellists continued on their line of ‘this is all about equality and marriage… there are no implications’. The ‘No’ side panellists continued to point out the obvious implications of it, and it is *those* implications that they are objecting to. The ‘Yes’ side continued their line that the ‘No’ side is trying to scare people by restating the obvious implications of a ‘Yes’ vote, continued with emotional anecdotes with no philosophical, historical, or scientific reasoning.
    .
    It was terrible. If I were a person programmed by popular culture and media who really doesn’t think about the implications and consequences of choices (with an inability to think logically about things), I’d definitely vote ‘Yes’ based on how the campaign has been run.
    .
    I’m just bracing myself and hoping for the best at this point. I know what this will mean and it’s simply not about gay marriage as they keep claiming. Enda Kenny has already stated that if the ‘Yes’ side wins, Catholic schools will be required to teach about same sex marriage, which inevitably means sex education classes that preach the sexual activities that go with it in a favourable light. Nevermind the obvious issues that will arise out of surrogacy and adoption practices that will result… and the State’s involvement in those things.
    .
    Catholics in Ireland… get ready… we’re in for a rough ride.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      Other than spurious and proven false allusions to child abuse being more prevalent in homosexuals, I’m really not sure what “implications and consequences” exist. Could you enlighten me?

      • Joseph

        Hmmm… I hadn’t even thought of that. But thanks for implying that I’m a homophobe! Awesome comeback!
        .
        On that topic though… a child raised by two lesbians laments not having access to her father… the same child that wrote ‘Heather Has Two Mommies’ (remember the firestorm that book created back in the day?). She’s, surprisingly, against same sex marriage when it comes to children. She loves her two mothers but grew up heartbroken and distraught at never having a father. May not be the child abuse you were looking for but, hey, it’s not all lollipops and sunshine.
        .
        But, anyway… here goes:
        .
        1) The implication with regards to the State being forced into a situation where they are wilfully involved in not granting the natural right of a child to have a father and mother.
        .
        2) The implication that, in combination with anti-discrimination laws on the books, all schools will be forced to teach about same-sex marriage and, thus, inevitably the sexual activity that goes with it, even in primary school… like in Ontario. Like Ontario, even Catholic schools will be forced to comply, Enda Kenny has stated as much. This is an infringement on religious freedom.
        .
        If I log on later, I’ll add more, but I have to leave.

        • LFM

          But it’s worse than that. Trying to teach heterosexual people that men ought to marry the mothers of their children (or not make them mothers in the first place); that children need fathers (or mothers); and that it is important for children to know their biological histories and parents, will be painted as “hatred” and thus be made illegal to utter in public, especially to school children.

          • kenofken

            Right. Irresponsibility among straight fathers is the fault of gay marriage…As long as we have gays in the docket, are their any other problems we’d like to pin on them at this time? The water crisis in California? Corruption in Nigeria? Maybe heterosexual domestic violence? Don’t be shy. LGBT folks really do make excellent scapegoats. It’s their best thing after musical theater and decorating….

            • LFM

              I said nothing of the kind, but this is not the first time that you’ve shown that when your emotions are engaged, you cease to be able to read or reason. I said that we will not be allowed ever to proclaim anywhere that men ought to marry the mothers of their children and to help raise and support them, for fear of offending gay couples. There. I said it again.

              Now I’ll add that as far as “fault” is concerned, that increasing irresponsibility among men *and* women (both are at fault, but connecting men to their children needs more social support) is the fault first, of the sexual revolution, and second of certain aspects of feminism, both of which also had much – everything – to do with the acceptance of same-sex marriage today and the means by which it is being imposed on society.

              It won’t just be straight people or their children who’ll suffer by this inability to speak frankly about children’s need for two married biological parents where this is at all possible. Because fewer straight people are having children, and of those who do, fewer are marrying, the social problems caused by the absence of workers, mass immigration to make up the loss, and feral children, especially boys, who turn to violence or to apathy and rootlessness, wasting their talents, unable to find mates because women don’t want to be saddled with the burden of a husband. It happened to black Americans; it is happening now to white Britons and to white Americans in the midwest. It happens everywhere children, marriage and parenthood become separated from each other in practise. Such societies are unstable, unequal, and potentially dangerous, for gay and straight people.

              • kenofken

                “I said that we will not be allowed ever to proclaim anywhere that men ought to marry the mothers of their children and to help raise and support them, for fear of offending gay couples. There. I said it again.”…

                It makes even less sense upon clarification.

                Why would gay couples be offended by a call for hetero men to marry their partners and take responsibility for their children? The fight for SSM has been driven in large part by the desire of gays and lesbians to create stable households for themselves and their children. They do have plenty of children – through surrogacy, IVF, naturally conceived children through previous hetero marriages etc. Why would they bar advocacy of marriage and family responsibility after going to the mat for it for all these years?

                • LFM

                  Gay people have not been “going to the mat” for family responsibility and advocacy; they have been going to the mat for getting what they see as the ultimate badge of acceptance by straight society. As proof, I offer the fact that now that the issue is largely won, hardly any gay people are getting married. As for why they would not support family responsibility for heterosexuals, they might do so in theory, sometimes, but their practice is all against it. Consider these issues:
                  1. Neither feminists, the single-mother-by-choice brigade nor lesbian couples support or encourage, as a norm, the idea that fathers are extremely important to the development and maturation of children of both sexes, or that boys have a particular need for their own fathers. Re-establishing such norms would threaten women’s “right” to have children under any circumstances they choose.
                  2. Gay male couples, and any who resort to IVF, do not believe that childbearing creates a bond of any particular significance. Gay male couples don’t accept that a mother is essential to the stability and psychological health of her children, especially daughters, or even that breast-feeding is of any great importance to the well-being of their children. Again, such beliefs would call into question their suitability as parents.
                  4. None of these groups is willing to accept that children have a right to know their parents or their biological history, or that biological parenthood is of any particular significance, at least to children. (It is of course deeply significant to parents, or they would not go to all the trouble and expense of IVF.) This refusal would inevitably undermine any counter-move in society to insist that it’s really important for biological fathers (or mothers, but less so) to be involved in their children’s lives.

                  The forces of political correctness are extremely swift to punish any deviation from the new norms or support for the old ones, whether among lawmakers, the media, academe, the public school system or the civil service.

                  Once you’ve introduced the principles that biological parenthood is not deeply significant, or that children do not need an opposite sex parent, it’s very difficult to then convince people that they matter after all, in certain conditions. A young man growing up in a society from which all hetero-normative assumptions have been removed can easily convince himself that his random coupling doesn’t matter, that the babies conceived by the women in his path – often, indeed, against his wishes or without his knowledge – are not any responsibility of his, and that in acting in this manner he is actually supporting female emancipation. Only the dogged determination of the state to secure child support from such men has ensured that they are still held somewhat responsible for their children. Of course, some men see the inconsistencies in the law and in culture, and resent being treated like wallets, so they are more reluctant to marry or to earn enough money to provide for their children.

                  Women growing up in such a society will assume – DO assume – that any support for, any attempt to re-establish, such norms is anti-feminist and anti-gay. Of course children don’t need to be brought up by fathers! Look at all the wonderful single mothers and gay moms there are in the world! (They sometimes change their minds once they have children but by then it’s too late.) They haven’t yet quite got their minds around the idea that mothers could soon be considered officially unnecessary too; that really would be breaking with an age-old norm. But it’s coming.

                  And all that does not take into account many of the moral issues surrounding IVF, which I’ll leave for another occasion.

                  [edited for clarity 12:15 p.m. Saturday May 23]

                  • Joseph

                    This is a better comment than the ones above. I think that despite what *they* say about the mental health of children who are forever separated from their biological parents is in opposition to the reality. It has negative effects. These are articles referencing studies showing the negative effects of children from broken homes (an automatic feature of a cosmetic child being procured in a same sex relationship as that child will *always* be deprived of one of their biological parents… and this is specifically the issue that the Heather with Two Mommies was raising in her campaigning for the ‘No’ side). There is a plethora of these studies that show a direct positive correlation to being separated from biological parents and mental/physical illnesses.
                    .
                    Now the State will be in the business of protecting the *right* to prevent attachment to at least one biological parent… and this isn’t child abuse?

                    • LFM

                      I think you’ll find that most gay-rights advocates dismiss that study because it deals with separated straight parents, not married gay ones. They set a high bar for proof from their opponents; not always for themselves. Below is a series of other links on related issues – not as “proofs” or definitive “studies”, but for interest’s sake. I’ve been collecting these for a while now:

                      •http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage
                      •http://www.canadiancrc.com/Fatherlessness/Fatherlessness_in_Canada.aspx
                      •http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html (this is a pro-gay-family “study” that, typically, makes reference only to other “studies” and does not explain their size or methodology. It is nevertheless cited as authoritative, here: http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
                      •http://connectitblog.blogspot.ca/2011/06/what-would-i-have-wanted-to-tell-my.html
                      •http://t5sdaughter.blogspot.ca/2012/06/does-biology-matter_25.html
                      •http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/12/11185/
                      •http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/646 – this famous Australian study uses “convenience sampling” (i.e. the people in it were recruited from ads, flyers, etc. posted at gay/lesbian community centers etc.), which is all right but not a research “gold standard”; it also deals only with dependent children who still live with their parents, which is another limitation. The same techniques were used back in the 1970s, I seem to recall, to prove that divorce had no effect on children at all, or if it did, the effect was positive. Sigh. It’s always about what the grownups want.
                      •http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/27/news/la-heb-ovarian-cancer-ivf-20111027
                      •http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/bioethics_article/10157
                      •http://maisonneuve.org/article/2013/01/21/egg-donation-dangerous/
                      •http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html?src=recg&_r=3&
                      (by a nice but confused same-sex partnered father)
                      •http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/01/the_embryo_factory.single.html
                      •http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
                      •https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/blog/?p=543
                      •http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
                      •http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2014/05/assisted-reproduction-ignores-best.html
                      •https://www.donorsiblingregistry.com/blog/?p=584
                      •http://daughterofadonor.com/?p=2736

                      Better stop now. I’ve got lots more, but am not sure if this will post properly.

                    • Joseph

                      That’s because *gay activists* have an agenda, and it doesn’t necessarily serve people with same sex attraction. Like I said above, not all people with same sex attraction are *gay activists* and not all *gay activists* have same sex attraction.
                      .
                      In the world we live in, in which scientific and historical facts are ignored when they are inconvenient and debate is reduced to name calling and who has the best emotional anecdote, it is generally accepted practice to disregard logic such as ‘single parent children’ = ‘children separated from one of their biological parents’.

                    • LFM

                      I used the phrase “gay-rights advocates” rather than “gay activists”, having been corrected about my use of the latter in the past; in any case, there are many people who are the former but not actually same-sex attracted themselves. But other than that, yes, not every gay person has the same agenda – or any – and perhaps I did not make that sufficiently clear.

            • Joseph

              Umm… that was probably the most intelligent comment… like… ever…

              • Alma Peregrina

                Homophobes are stoopid. Homophobes *must* blame homosexuals for every evil in the world just because I can’t see the implications of homosexual marriage. Because logic.

          • Joseph

            Hmm… I’m not sure about that at all. I don’t get that ever happening. I think we should focus on the immediate effects a ‘Yes’ vote will have on children. Anyhow, the introduction of gay marriage isn’t suddenly going to make dead-beat dads want to become good fathers.

            • LFM

              You don’t get that ever happening? It’s happening here in North America as we speak, er, write.

        • Donalbain

          The woman raised by lesbians has nothing to do with whether a gay couple should be allowed to marry. Her story shows that banning gay marriage has no positive effect on the children, since her mother was never able to marry her partner.

          • Joseph

            She longed for a father she was never able to have contact with because of her familial configuration. It caused her great psychological harm and still does today. I’m not sure how you find that difficult to understand. What will come from same sex marriage is a situation where the State *must* directly be involved with separating children from at least one of their biological parents. That is her complaint, because she understands the negative psychological effects that has had on her entire life and still has today.
            .
            It’s not *just* about marriage equality and the ‘Yes’ side is being disingenuous by pretending that children and the effects on them have nothing to do with it.
            .
            For the record, if a secular/pagan/atheist government decides to do enshrine something so opposed to science, reason, and human history, I say let them do what they want to do. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. From a religious standpoint, it wouldn’t be the first time in history that the Church has had to live under governments that had laws that were in opposition to its teachings. If same sex marriage is what they want, they can have it.
            .
            *My* issue with it is the natural consequences of that decision. When the State is now involved with deliberately removing any possibility of a child from having ties to its biological parents as a rule, they are actively hurting children (anyone from a broken home would understand this, even adopted children).

            • Donalbain

              Gay marriage was not a factor at all in her situation. Nobody in her life was married to a person of the same gender.

              • Joseph

                That you can’t put two and two together basically highlights the flaw in the logic of the ‘Yes’ camp (the uniformed voters, that is, who have bought the line that it’s all about marriage equality and nothing more). The ringleaders of the ‘Yes’ camp are not so ignorant.

                • Donalbain

                  Facts:

                  1) A woman is upset about how she was raised.
                  2) She was not raised in a gay marriage.

                  Conclusion

                  We should not allow gay people to marry.

                  Perhaps you could explain how you make that leap from those facts to that conclusion.

                  • Joseph

                    She was raised by a same sex couple, without a father. Married or not, that’s what caused her psychological distress. So, you’re saying if the same sex couple happened to be married, things would have been different for her? It’s not a leap. 2 + 2 = 4. Thanks for highlighting, once again, how difficult it is to make a sheep think without the guidance of their thought masters.

                    • Donalbain

                      No. I am saying that banning gay marriage did not help that woman.

                    • Joseph

                      Neither would have making it legal. What hurt that woman was being raised by a same sex couple and being deprived of a father. Married or not, the damage was done because of the familial configuration. Legal same sex marriage will just manifestly increase the frequency of children like her (because the *married* same sex couple will have the *right* to a child and thus a *right* to deprive the child of at least one biological parent).

                    • Donalbain

                      Nope. She is upset because her father was not around and she wanted him to be. There is no evidence at all that this was related to the fact that her mother was romantically involved with another woman. Indeed, if her mother had gone to another man, her situation would have been the same as far as her father is concerned.

                    • Joseph

                      Umm… except that it was precisely because of her familial configuration that her father was not in the picture. And she actually has stated as much… which is why she’s opposed to the ‘Yes’ vote and speaking out against it… for that exact reason. You know, you’re not making sense, right?

                    • Donalbain

                      No. It was not. There is no evidence at all to support that. Her father would have been just as “around” if her mother had married another man.

                    • Joseph

                      But she’d still be able to contact her father in that case… derp. In fact, more than likely, that father would have to pay *child support* because he *is* the father of that child. He would probably have that child for the weekends or for holidays and even if he was a total deadbeat, that child would know who that father was, that he exists, and even be in a position to contact him in the future. As for child support and visits, those are typically mandated by the state to keep a connection with the biological parent in the event of a broken home. And the state doesn’t prevent a child from reuniting with an estranged parent when they reach adulthood.
                      .
                      Which pretty much destroys your point… again. The *new* configuration would require the state to deliberately act in ensuring that the child is removed from at least one biological parent with no way to trace them. It’s sort of the *exact opposite* of how it works today.

                    • Donalbain

                      There is no evidence at all to support that. We don’t know if the father wanted or tried to have any contact with her. The fact that her mother chose to live with a woman in no way stopped or hindered the father from having access. If her mother had remarried a man, how would her access to her father have been any different?

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      Joseph: Let it go. Donalbain has found a semantic loophole, so he’s entitled to ignore the reality of the situation to make a point, while he sticks his head in the sand and says: “Lalalalah everything’s fine lalalalah I can’t hear you”

                      Believe me from years of Internet debates… Let it go. That semantic loophole is the only thing that’s keeping his dogmatic illusion that he’s protecting the rights of poor children *and* gays. Nothing good will come out from shattering that ilusion, you’ll just get an irrational backlash.

                    • Joseph

                      Except that Donalbain actually has *not* found a semantic loophole. Donalbain is emotionally vested in the ‘Yes’ side and his reason is being conquered. His comments are actually nonsensical. This a common feature of sheep who do whatever popular media tells them to do. It’s the new blind faith.

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      Agreed.

            • Jon Hendry

              “She longed for a father she was never able to have contact with because of her familial configuration.”

              Something that never happened ever ever ever in the history of the world except in the context of same-sex relationships?

              I bet JFK’s kids longed for the father they were never able to have contact with.

              • LFM

                Whether it happens to heterosexual families as well is not the issue. What IS the issue is the deliberate quality of the deprivation, whether with single mothers by choice or lesbian mothers [error: original read “lesbian fathers”]. (And I don’t look forward to the day when intentional motherlessness becomes more common.) It’s one thing when that kind of deprivation happens as the result of some criminal firing a gun, or even as the result of the breakdown of a thoughtful marriage in which the parents still care enough to make an effort for their children’s sake. It’s another thing to do that to your child *deliberately*.

                Have a look at this piece for further information (it’s not a “right wing” source): http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201205/father-absence-father-deficit-father-hunger.

              • Joseph

                Nice try, but not the point and not a very good analogy. I’m sure I don’t have to break it down for you (but maybe I do, considering you’re obviously one of those who can’t think for themselves).

          • LFM

            Her story shows that lesbian couples, married or not, cannot provide the father that children need.

            • Donalbain

              No. It shows that ONE person was unhappy. It says nothing about any couples in general.

              • LFM

                No, but it is quite common on the other side of this issue to use carefully selected personal stories to “prove” that same-sex parenting is fine and that there are no problems associated with it, and it seems entirely fair that the opposite point of view ought to be aired. If this woman’s perspective is being given more weight than most, it’s because of the “Heather Has Two Mommies” connection.

                For myself, I don’t believe that there are any adequate “studies” of same-sex parenting as a mass phenomenon, but it would not really matter to me if there were, and if they were all positive. I take the view that to deprive children, intentionally, of one or both of their biological parents, and to deprive them of the possibility of having two opposite-sex parents, is the denial of two basic human rights, no matter how good the parents may be.

                • Donalbain

                  Tu quoque.

                  • LFM

                    So what? You’ve been nit-pickingly literal-minded in your attempts to discredit this woman’s story as having any relevance to same-sex marriage, knowing all along that in fact it was relevant, although as I said, not far-reaching enough to prove much. So at this point I feel no qualms about employing a tu quoque defense, because (tu quoque, again, bwa-hahaha) you’ve been arguing in bad faith all along.

                    • Donalbain

                      And now you are simply lying. Have fun with that.

                    • LFM

                      Lying? Where? What are you talking about? If you think I’m mistaken in my views of your comments so far, that’s one thing, but how on earth does that make me a liar? That was such a silly comment that it makes me wonder if you even know the definition of the word liar, i.e. someone who makes statements that are deliberately intended to deceive those who read or hear them.

                      You’re an ignoramus. Have fun with it.

        • Vision_From_Afar

          I offered the only “implication” I have ever been offered in return. That you chose to see it as an attack is unfortunate, but I suppose understandable. Apologies.

          1. The state doesn’t recognize that right now in certain cases of adoption or artificial conception, so nothing new here.
          2. Boo frickin hoo. Sorry, arguing this is an infringement on “religious freedom” is no different than arguing that racially unsegregated schools is against “religious freedom”. Historical and religious text support both cases. In Ontario, Catholic schools get government money. If you don’t want to have to toe the State line, don’t take state money. (From your own linked article: “They’re part of the publicly funded school system here in Ontario and this is part of our curriculum,” McGuinty said.“)

          ETA: One anecdote does not a trend create. (“a child…”)

          • LFM

            Apparently, you don’t know or don’t remember that the reason Catholic schools, in Ontario, accept government money, is that they did a deal with “non-conforming” (i.e. non-Anglican) churches in the late 19th century. The deal involved Catholic voters agreeing to support public (non-Church-of-England) schools with their school tax money, as long as a portion of that money – a small portion – would also be used to support a public, Catholic school system. The non-Conformists and the Catholics were doing an end-run around the “Established” church.

            What the laws regarding schools in Ontario stated was that any “faith community” could create publicly-funded schools for itself with enough voter support. Catholics were all set to go private for themselves, as they usually did in the “Anglosphere”, until they were approached by a delegation of non-conformist Protestants of various denominations who did NOT constitute a large voting block, who wanted to crush the Anglican block and needed Catholic support to do so. The Catholics agreed to offer their support for non-Anglican Prot public schools as long as they got Prot support for Catholic public schools. (I am not making this up.)

            In other words, Ontario might not have had a public school system at all – or more likely, would not have had one relatively early, and supported by public money – if it had not been for the Catholic Church agreeing to support it. That’s the real reason why the tradition of “public” Catholic schools continues to exist in Ontario today.

        • mitchw7959

          “thanks for implying that I’m a homophobe!” — you did that all by yourself. Now go ahead, tell us about all the wonderful imaginary gay friends you have, and how when you talk to them, they don’t mind being treated as second-class citizens and denied the same rights, benefits, and privileges and responsibilities that CIVIL marriage afford every couple, and how they don’t mind it when NO campaigners attack them as pedophiles, marxists, or Destroyers of Western Civilization, because gosh darn, that Joseph is just such a nice, compassionate straight ally. Bravo sierra.

          • Joseph

            Laughable… thanks for proving my point! LOL. I couldn’t have done it better myself. You’re brilliant.

    • DKeane123

      “The climate here is dripping with anti-Catholicism” – Can’t imagine why, the Catholic Church in Ireland has had some really good press over the past decade.

      • Joseph

        I’ve always agreed that the Church hierarchy and religious in Ireland deserves what they get. But the anti-Catholic nature of the attacks in the country go above and beyond the deserving targets. Those that deserve it acted contrary to their religion (and the religious tenets aren’t ambiguous nor do they fluctuate based on interpreters of religious artefacts like Protestantism or Islam). The attacks aren’t levelled at the perpetrators but at the religion itself and, by proxy, the innocent adherents of that religion.
        .
        In a nutshell… intolerance and bigotry.
        .
        This was the ‘Yes’ campaign in a nutshell. This image floated gleefully around Facebook and received countless ‘likes’ and comments such as, ‘this is the best quote I’ve seen yet’. Even though the thrust of it is parents who are concerned about what their children will be forced to study in sex ed at a young age as a result of this referendum have sh*tty, ugly kids whom they never communicate with (so they’re bad parents, by implication).

        • Joseph

          Here is the image. No hate speech there… nah.

          • MichaelNewsham

            Ah, yes, Louie C.K., noted Irishman.

  • Joseph

    “Nobody in the gay “marriage” debate gives a thought to the natural right children have to a mother and father.” — I think they do… and they object to it.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      Well, just make sure you force all single parents to get married while you’re at it.
      Think of the children, won’t you?

      • Joseph

        Children of single parents have a mother and father. Not all of them are married. Still, their natural right was exercised.
        .
        In the case of gay couples, they cannot procreate naturally. So, if they want to have children (those that aren’t carried over from previous heterosexual relationships), they have to turn to surrogacy or adoption *by necessity*… and the State will have to be an actor in enforcing it for these new families. Surrogacy is nothing new as heterosexual couples do it, but it’s merely an option that is only more or less regulated (it doesn’t make it right, however). The new familial arrangement will make it a service that is *required* by the State to accommodate them. Every child born to surrogacy is separated from their natural mother, so the State gets into the business of *deliberately and wilfully enabling and engaging in the separation of children from their natural parents, which shouldn’t be the function of the State at all. This is different from the single parent situation. The State wasn’t an actor in separating the child from one or both of its parents in that case, so the State did not deprive that child of its natural right… the parents did.
        .
        In the case of adoption, same thing… the State wasn’t active in depriving the child’s right to a father and a mother.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          Rebecca Hamilton has written about surrogacy. In some cases, the female egg comes from one woman, and the carrying surrogate is another, so there is no risk of the carrying surrogate trying to get maternal rights, as she isn’t the biological mother.

          • Joseph

            In the case that the egg donor mother remains is the mother whose in their care, it’s not so bad… that is if the biological father is also part of their family (though I still don’t agree with surrogacy even in this case). However, this doesn’t resolve the issue with two *parents* of the same sex where *definitely* the child will be deprived of at least one biological parent.
            .
            I’m pretty sure that you understand the psychological impact a broken home has on children. Not only have I experienced it myself but have thankfully dealt with those demons of wishing I had a normal family with a mother and father, but many of my friends have… two of whose lives have ended too early for various reasons that I won’t elaborate on out of respect. The constant bouts of depression drawn from not having a *normal* childhood was something that impacted them through their lives.
            .
            It’s not a *cultural* issue. It’s a real issue where children long for some connection to their biological parents, to know where they’re from, to have the answers *why* they were unable to have an attachment to their biological parents. It’s natural, not programmed.
            .
            That’s only in the case of broken families. Imagine a scenario when the State is forced by law (based on this false sense of *equality*) to become a deliberate actor in separating children from their biological parents. Up until recently, this type of familial configuration was never something the State *caused* to happen.
            .
            It may not be a form of physical child abuse, but I can’t see why people don’t understand that it causes psychological damage, which is in itself a form of child abuse. Here we’re faced with government sanctioned psychological abuse. I can’t understand the ‘Yes’ side argument that it has nothing to do with surrogacy or adoption… it does… it has to.

            • Rebecca Fuentes

              I wasn’t defending surrogacy, believe me. I didn’t follow through with my ideas, that the arrangement I mentioned is usually done by two men, and that it is done to further guarantee that the child could never track down a mother, should they wish. I don’t support surrogacy in any form (for one, it creates EXACTLY the “woman as breeder” situation that liberals claim outlawing abortion would cause). I don’t support sperm donation and artificial insemination either. I have three friends who have miscarried this spring. Two of them miscarried last year as well, and have lost two babies in a row. It breaks my heart for them, but drives home the point more than ever that no one, not anyone, has a right to children. It can be a family who dearly loves and wants more (or even one), but that doesn’t mean they have a special right to a child. In society today, it has gone hand-in-hand with the idea that woman has a right to NOT have a child, that anyone who wants one has a right to a child, without thought to how, or the rights of the child.
              I certainly agree with you on the damage caused by broken families, either those that are intact then break, or those that are never complete to begin with. My step-daughter’s biological mother abandoned her and her father when she was two. All through her childhood, people kept talking about how kids are better with two separated, happy parents instead of two unhappy parents together. Bull-pucky. I don’t doubt for a second that my step-daughter would have zapped me out of her life in an instant if there was a chance that her mother would come back and they could be the original family again. And I love her, and I don’t blame her.
              Even in those cases where children have to be removed from a home for their own safety, there is damage done that only Christ can heal.

              • Joseph

                Exactly. Surrogacy turns the child into a commodity and the woman into a walking incubator. The illogical and contradictory commenters in this thread are OK with the former but claim to be against the latter… but their outrage at the prospect of walking incubators only extends to women in traditional marriages. So great is their inconsistency.. but, oh well… not much you can do with a brain case full of mush after hours and hours of steady programming by popular media. The reason I didn’t bring up any objections to surrogacy itself was because I thought it would detract from the overall point.
                .
                The whole notion that owning a child is a *right* is little different than a slave owner claiming a *right* to own a slave… this goes for heterosexual couples as well who demand that nature changes to suit them. Imagine though, now owning a child will become a *right* because there will be married couples who have absolutely no chance to procreate. With that *right* will come the *right* to deprive them from at least one of their biological parents for life. Way to start them off on the right path… all so someone can own a living, breathing, Cabbage Patch Kid.

            • MichaelNewsham

              How is “the State forced by law” to do this? You mean allowing people to make this choice? Or covering it under health insurance?

        • Vision_From_Afar

          Children exist because of reproductive cells from a mother and a father, thus their “natural” right was “exercised”. Fixed that for you.

          How in the Nine Worlds is it *required*? I get that there are those who would be more than happy to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do the moment a conception occurs, but I think you’re in full tin-foil hat territory if you’re seriously arguing that the State will create some kind of “breeder” status for some females, “requiring” them to carry babies to term for others. I thought we were Capitalists. Where there’s a demand, someone will create a supply. Government-curated gay surrogacy slavery is nuts.

          Sorry, but in every case of child abuse, The State is the actor separating the child from one or both of its parents. Unless you’d like to argue that’s evil too.

          • Joseph

            Wow. What goes on in that head of yours?

            • Vision_From_Afar

  • Joseph

    By the way, the ‘Yes’ panel tacitly denied that they have received foreign monies to help with their saturation campaign. They did this by hiding it under a bushel of ambiguity… but it worked, nonetheless. They’re response to the question of funding (which didn’t come from the moderator, of course, for she would have become ritually impure at that point) was that the State receives external funding for all sorts of *charities*… LGBT organisations are just one of many.

    • mitchw7959

      But you have no objection to American fundamentalists pouring millions of dollars in resources and their spiritual support to anti-gay propaganda laws and harsh penalties for same-sex behavior in Uganda, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Russia. Who cares if a few queers get beaten to death by mobs or tortured by their own governments? Certainly not Scott Lively, the Family Research Council, the NO voters, or their creepy American Dominionist supporters.

      • Joseph

        I absolutely object to another nation funnelling money into organisations created to disrupt and coerce foreign, sovereign governments to enact policy changes that that have no business sticking their nose into. Yes, that goes for those fundamentalists of which you speak trying to keep the status quo and the counter-fundamentalists who are funnelling money to counter-organisations in the same countries trying to enact policy changes. So, your point?

  • That Hideous Strength.

    • LFM

      From “The Book of Common Prayer”.

      • The title of the third novel in a trilogy by C.S. Lewis.

        • LFM

          Yes, sorry. I meant that the passage in question – though cited in That Hideous Strength – was in fact originally from The Book of Common Prayer.

  • honzik

    I watched the wedding scene in Pride and Prejudice, and wondered, was the prologue to the wedding vows the standard form in England in the early 1800s? If so, it strikes me as very orthodox, stating the reasons for marriage as: the procreation of children, as a remedy against sexual sin (cf 1 Corinthians 7), and for the “mutual society, help, and comfort that one ought to have of the other both in prosperity and adversity.. ” . Am I right in wondering if any of these three aspects of marriage are prominent in the modern secular notion of marriage?

    (Skip to 1:23)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHAAUgMgafs

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I don’t believe it’s in the original text. I think the screen writers put it in to highlight the different marriages taking/having taken place (Lydia and Wickham vs Lizzie and Darcy/ Jane and Bingley). I think the only one of these that has survived in recent times is the idea of mutual society and help–but it isn’t viewed as permanent.

      • honzik

        You’re right – it’s not in the original text. It’s part of the adaptation, which, all in all, is quite good. I didn’t know, however, that it was from the Book of Common Prayer (thanks LFM!)

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          I love that adaptation.

    • LFM

      Yes, that was the standard form of wedding vows in England. The words are from the Anglican “Book of Common Prayer”.

  • MichaelNewsham

    What is this “Ireland” you speak of? Judging from Patheos Catholic channel for the last few days, it’s an imaginary country that has somehow magically disappeared into thin air.

    OTOH, we did learn that scores of people cheered a procession in Thailand and that Archbishop Romero’s insides were miraculously preserved.

    • Joseph

      Not sure what you mean? Can you explain? Or did this post not exist and we are only imagining that we are commenting on it? Silly logic.

      • MichaelNewsham

        This post is from May 20: it pre-dates the vote by two days. At the time I wrote, no story had appeared on Catholic channel after the vote acknowledging what had happened.

        I understand bloggers write about what they choose, such as several instant responses to the Duggar scandal; I just found it noticeable that there had been NO response anywhere on Patheos Catholic channel for three days afterward- including from the Catholic News Agency, whose motto is “Headlines From the Catholic World”. They do have a story up dated May 25, so there is one mention of it now.