Ireland’s Same-Sex Gmarriage Vote: Or, The Snakes Return?

From the Irish Times, accessed late 20 May 2015.
From the Irish Times, accessed late 20 May 2015.

Update See Saturday’s post for results.

Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has “no wish to stuff [his] religious views down other people’s throats”—is that done with a shillelagh?—and so he won’t tell or even suggest or even hint to the Irish which way to vote on tomorrow’s referendum on same-sex “marriage” (hereafter gmarriage).

He did let it slip that he himself will vote no because, said his Excellency, he has “strong views” about the matter. Strength is a relative measure. Martin’s strong view: “decisions should not be taken lightly and that people should be informed of what is involved.”

Perhaps this is the place to recall that the Catholic Church has no choice but to call only marriage marriage, which is why it cannot support gmarriage. This position is inflexible for the Church and for its followers.

Unlike strength, inflexible isn’t relative: it is absolute. So how to read this incongruous report by the leftist Washington Post: “Priests are bucking Catholic Church leadership to support same-sex marriage in Ireland“?

For the Rev. Pádraig1 Standún, a Catholic priest in western Ireland, voting “yes” is a matter of what’s right. To another Irish priest, the Rev. Iggy O’Donovan, it’s about creating an inclusive state.

To the Rev. Martin Dolan, Ireland’s upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage is deeply personal.

“I’m gay myself,” he announced to his Dublin congregation in January. It was a surprise ending to Dolan’s homily, in which he urged his congregation to vote “yes” in the referendum. But his parishioners took it in stride — they gave him a standing ovation, according to the Belfast Telegraph.

The Belfast Telegraph reported that Dolan’s parishioners were “proud” Dolan was sexually attracted to males. Curious, that. One supposes (Northern) Ireland has had little else to cheer about.

Anyway, the Post says, “Rev. Tony Flannery, founder of the reform-minded Irish Association of Catholic Priests, estimated that 25 percent of the country’s clergy would vote ‘yes.'” By “reform” the Post means “dismantling”.

Perhaps Flannery exaggerates, wishcasts, that is. Even Yours Truly has been prone to this malady (and more often than he would like!). Given his ardent desires, Flannery might have estimated priestly support too high. But consider: the support should, in theory, be zero percent. Theory says no priest could be that duplicitous, that unfaithful, that heretical. Yet something in the wind tells us that Flannery is right and the theory wrong. Flannery might have even underestimated the turnout of the turncoats.

Imagine exit polls: “Did you vote in favor of gmarriage, father?” Those that did might even admit it, given their bishop’s strong views.

Step into the surreal. The Irish Times has a Q&A for “confused” readers. “Q. Will a Yes vote redefine marriage?” No, says the paper. If this is so—if marriage won’t be refined—then why have a vote? Next question, answers the paper.

“Q. Would priests be forced to perform same-sex marriages?” No, they guess. But they’re not quite sure, mentioning the relevant law might need “copperfastening”, i.e. strengthening. Right, your Excellency?

Q. (mine) Would citizens who do not want to pretend that two men who are pretending to be married have to pretend too or else face civil and criminal penalties? Yes, say I. They will.

Would it, at this late date, do any good to repeat that marriage is not a contract between two (why two?) people, but an understanding between a man and woman—one fleshand society? Probably not, but nothing ventured, etc.

Look: society must change if marriage does. Strike that: marriage won’t change: it can’t. But that-which-is-called-marriage can be expanded. And society’s rules must adapt to accommodate this “expansion.” This is why those who refuse to pretend must and will be coerced.

There cannot and will not be any compromise. How do I know? The same was true when that-which-is-called-marriage was expanded to include “re-marriages” after divorce. Is it even conceivable (or even legal) to now tell a man who is in his second (or third) go ’round that he is not married to the women with whom he lives despite whatever government paperwork he has? It sounds unbearably cruel.

And look what divorce has wrought.

Perhaps the good news is that the Church has been allowed by Leviathan to maintain its teaching that “re-marriage” is impermissible. Maybe the State will look the other way on gmarriage, too.

Of course, many in the Church are weakening on divorce as well as gmarriage. Wait and see what happens in Rome in October.

Meanwhile, the only organization in Ireland that is opposing gmarriage is the Church—those of her members who remember the promises they made, that is.

Polls have the referendum passing by about 70%. And while people don’t like to tell random callers they are against “progress”—the Psychological Society of Ireland said ‘No’ voters will cause psychological harm—so this number is therefore probably high, it would be a miracle if were so far off that the referendum failed.

Your guess of the final tally?

Update Another Bishop forgets his duty: ‘I Would Hate For People To Vote No For Bigoted Reasons.’

“I don’t doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote yes and that’s entirely up to them. I’m not going to say they’re wrong,” McKeown said.

Polls just closed (5 PM NYC time). Word is record-level turnout.


1Pronounced, if you can believe it, as porh-rig.


  1. Gary

    1Pronounced, if you can believe it, as porh-rig.

    Yes, they must be advised on pronunciation by the French. Throw lots of extra letters in and then make something up. Sort of like polls and news reports and doctrinal pronouncements by fearful “leadership.”

  2. This “don’t want to shove my religious views down others throats”: marriage should be renamed civil unions and be devoid of any moral character, simply a legal contract. Churches may institute their own marriages and call them “Holy Marriages” or the like. There should be NO indication whatsoever that civil unions are right or wrong, thus taking away the effort to legitimize through law what is fundamentally immoral. (Irish Catholic priests take note of this–God is watching. You do have a choice and you’re making a very satanic one here. Time for housecleaning of priests??? I do hope Dolan is celibate or maybe he’s hoping the referendum will pass and he can diss the church and marry someone?)

    It is a truly fascinating aspect of humans how easily they behave badly and self-destructively and then pat themselves on the back for it. Even when immoral and stupid kill, people just keep right on cheering. Humans are a screwy bunch. Luckily we’re not like other animals or we’d be extinct, eaten by the predators we thought wanted to make friends, not eat us. (Of course, maybe there were humans before who were as foolish as we and there’s no remaining traces of them because their bad behaviour destroyed them and predators ate all the remains. Mmmmm…..)

    Yes, this is redefining marriage and is the perfect opportunity to include multiple partners, partners of other species, inanimate objects and remove “consent” from the definition. I say “Go for it and remove ALL constraints. It’s only fair.” If I don’t see gmarriage supporters doing that, I will pronounce your support of fairness to be BS and ignore you from here on out as a liar and snake. (Don’t even bother to try and defend your lies and unfairness if you disagree. They are not defensible.)

  3. max

    Gay marriage isn’t on the ballot, extending civilmarriage to same-sex couple is. Ireland, like many European countries, has created something called civil marriage, which is a second-class form of marriage, marriage lite with the joining of souls left out. The Church’s official position on civil marriage of homosexuals is that is it a bad policy choice, and to the extent that Church teachings direct policy choices by followers the followers should follow them, however as it is not an essential religious doctrine supporting homosexual civil marriage does not constitute a break with the Church.

    The US has never created a two-tier system of religious and civil marriage, and since 1994 by court ruling it would be considered discriminatory to create such a system. In the US there is only marriage as a religious sacrament which is recognized by the state so, in the US and not Ireland, any Catholic who supports same-sex marriage is not in communion with the Church.

  4. Sylvain

    Hans haha


    The résultt will probably be lower than the poll.

    Those who oppose are more likely to go vote because they simply care more about the issue. Many amongst those in favor probably don’t care enough to make the effort or waste their time going to vote. Depending on turn out it could fail this time but it would pass at the next round.


    You are in favor of religious liberty. Then how can you deny the religious freedom of people to believe that homosexuality is not a sin, or immoral?

  5. “In the US there is only marriage as a religious sacrament which is recognized by the state so, in the US and not Ireland, any Catholic who supports same-sex marriage is not in communion with the Church.”

    This is incorrect. We have no “marriage as religious sacrament” federally. The states define marriage, and the other states have to respect them. A Catholic can vote to make for the legalization of gay marriage, be personally opposed to it, and is well within understandable reason and moral bounds.

    You guys can rationalize your irrational discomfort with homosexuality all you like, but no serious person will take you seriously.


  6. Sylvain: I did not deny people their religious liberty. In fact, I supported ALL forms of civil unions including animals, same-sex, more than one partner and anything anyone wants. I deny these individuals the use of the term “marriage” because that has religious overtones. Can’t have that hanging over people’s heads, you know. Joining two or more participants can do whatever one chooses, like as long as it’s kept secular. No problems–I’m more generous than most so-called progressives.

    JMJ: When can I expect to see your rallies for polygamy, polyandry, beastiality, and anything thing else the heart desires? You must be FAIR and that is the only way to be fair. Civil unions okay with you? If not, you are pushing your morality on to me and demanding I support your beliefs, which makes you a bad person, I think. Well, at least that’s what you always say about people who disagree with you.
    (Again, the air headed idea that only people who fear homosexuals note against this. I guess it’s true what I was reading on another blog–progressives are incapable of believing anyone could possibly disagree with them, so they make up things in their heads to explain why they MUST be right and everyone else must be wrong. Wonderful example, thank you.)

    If you oppose multiple partner marriages and marrying animals, does that mean you fear those things? That’s your argument when it comes to gay marriage, so I have to then use your reasoning to conclude you fear polygamy and animal sex. Narrow, bigoted and unfair to those who practice these things. How dare you??????

  7. Sander van der Wal


    Indeed, the famous Worchester Sauce comes to mind.

  8. Sylvain


    Religion doesn’t own the word marriage, no one does. Their are many religion around and none share the same beliefs. For some Christian, homosexuality is a sin, for other Christian homosexuality is not a sin. So for some Christian it is okay that gay get married.

    The problem with religious beliefs is in the action not the belief. By denying marriage to someone that do not share your belief you, and even more the State, you are yourself guilty of imposing your views on other.

    You are against gay marriage then don’t get gay married. You are against homosexual relation then don’t have sex with same gender people.

    Personally I find the way Catholics understand the Holy Trinity idiotic. That Jesus was three different person in one does not make any sense. What make sense is that mankind has 3 different nature in 1 person, the spirit (in the invisible), the soul link between visible and invisible, and the body (in the visible).

    Your beliefs have no impact on my relation with God. Your action on the other hand have an impact on other people.

  9. Ray

    I’m still trying to find out how homosexuals consummate a marriage. The definition of consummation usually refers to penile-vaginal sexual penetration. Formerly if this didn’t happen the marriage was considered invalid.

  10. Semiotic Animal

    “A Catholic can vote to make for the legalization of gay marriage, be personally opposed to it, and is well within understandable reason and moral bounds.”

    Such a person could only act irrationally and with an incoherent mind. A vote for the legalization of gay marriage is a personal support of it, i.e. a person acts as if he sees it as a good for the political order and part of the common good. To then personally oppose it would be to oppose the common good and hence he would act in contradiction to himself.

  11. He would only be acting in contradiction to himself if he himself engaged in homosexuality. Allowing others their own beliefs is well within Catholic doctrine.


  12. Frankly, I don’t care if you’re heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual or like to stick your penis in holes in trees (as long as I’m not required to watch). I don’t even think – and this will shock some people – one’s sexual preferences is important. I’m old school in the sense I think your intellectual capacities, moral values and achievements and abilities are important, instead.

    Now, am I pro gay marriage? No I am not. Not if that grants the same legal rights to homosexual men as it does to heterosexual couples with regards to adopting children. Why? Because the social science research indicates that male homosexuals have vastly more unstable relationships, then the already not especially stable heterosexual population. Everything is and apparently, always has been about, ‘fairness’. But there many facets to the concept of ‘fairness’. What’s fair to adults may not be fair to the children under their care. Children also have rights to fairness. Once there is a change in social policy it’s almost impossible to reverse that policy.

  13. Sylvain: Of course someone “owns” the word marriage or we wouldn’t be going to the Supreme Court to get it clarified. If it’s not important, then why to gays insist on using the word and not accepting civil unions?
    So you’re okay with polyandry, polygamy, sex with dead people etc? How about marrying inanimate objects? I guess as long as you don’t have to actively participate…And as for consent, there is no such requirement in many, many cultures so why are we Americans so uptight about these things? Remember, no one owns the word so in cultures where consent is not part of the definition, who cares? Unless of course you are just the uptight type?
    JMJ: What part of voting “for” something do you not understand? So if you voted for a Republican conservative it would only be because you have seen the light and realize it’s for the good of the country, even though you still don’t agree? I doubt that.
    Will: I don’t care what people do until they demand I approve. Your point on children is a good one.
    Good example of “fairness”:
    Other schools have the same policy. So school is now a free-for-all and unfair to everyone but junior anarchists.

  14. JH

    [I]t would be a miracle if were so far off that the referendum failed.

    Redefinition of miracle!

  15. Semiotic Animal

    “He would only be acting in contradiction to himself if he himself engaged in homosexuality. Allowing others their own beliefs is well within Catholic doctrine.”
    Certainly it is within Catholic doctrine, but you did not propose that he allow others their beliefs, but approve and oppose at the same time legislation. A man may tolerate another man pretending to get married to whatever he wishes to say that he is married to. However, it is entirely different to approve that his fantasy be made law and thus approve it as part of the common good.
    Note that the contradiction has nothing to do with Catholicism or “allowing others their own beliefs.” It has to do with simultaneously willing and not willing the same thing. This is irrational for any man, Catholic or not. Indeed, it is less coherent and more irrational then “I personally oppose x, but I don’t want to enforce my beliefs about x on others.” You proposition is “I personally oppose x, but I personally approve x.”

  16. If he decides it’s better for all those involved to allow the legality of the sin, then I see no conundrum. I suppose it depends on what is more important to him – his peevishness or the welfare of his neighbors, community, and nation.


  17. Sylvain


    The question of marriage that is in front of the Supreme Court is about the State discriminating against individual. The refusal by the State to recognize gay marriage, as in the past as in the past with interracial marriage, harmed a category of its citizen. The question before the Court is, can or should the State enforce this discrimination? The answer is no. It is not the business of the State dictate its citizen whom they chose to marry.

    Consent is not required in some other countries. But there the women are not considered person, but properties of the father or husband. Are you suggesting that we should go back to when women were not recognize as a person under the law, as it was in the 1800s?

    Consent here comes from the fact that people cannot be forced into contract. Here we are not talking of a place of business which is not an individual and does not have the same right.

  18. JMJ: The welfare of his neighbors involves getting them NOT to sin rather than increasing it. By your logic, we should legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc because those are sins, not crimes. Really, who are we to tell people they can’t get high and pay for sex? Also, again, I expect to see you out campaigning for other types of marriage, a subject conspicuously absent from your comments. A bit of hypocrisy, most probably.

    Sylvain: If we are redefining marriage, and we ARE, no matter how you may try to weasel out of it, we need to remove consent. It’s just a barrier to some people’s happiness and those people are the only ones we care about. If it means women have to be declared property to keep men happy, well, we don’t want unhappy men and women will adjust. This is not about everyone’s happiness–it’s about fairness. Actually, to be fair, we could just have people draw lots and be classified as property or person that way. Then it’s totally fair.

    NOTE: Argue all you want about fairness, but every single decision out there makes someone happy. It’s unfair to someone. It does NOT matter why I’m unhappy with gays marrying, I am. Making me unhappy is unfair. Remember, depriving gays of marriage and their happiness was YOUR argument. So now you are unfair to ME. I want my happiness back or I will consider you narrow and bigoted and bad for taking it away. You can’t be “fair” to everyone—it’s impossible and really, really stupid to believe it can even be approximated. Yet, that’s the argument. And apparently some of you are content to continue to make that argument even knowing how impossible and irrational it is. That says a lot about you.

  19. Semiotic Animal

    JMJ said
    “I see no conundrum.”
    I’m sure you don’t, probably because you have now proposed three unrelated actions: supporting and opposing some legislation, allowing others their own beliefs and legalizing some sin of somebody.

  20. Sylvain

    Making you unhappy is unfair???

    Not at all. Preventing someone to have the same privilege this is what is unfair. Forcing kids into marriage is unfair. Two male agreeing to get married is unfair to whom exactly? Who is the victim?

    You don’t like that consent is required because the requirement of consent destroy any argument you put forward.

  21. Briggs,

    You seem to fail to realize that the Catholic Church lost its standing after the coming out of the many sexual abuse done by priest which were then protected by the Church. The emptying of the Church in Quebec is very similar to what happened in Ireland, i.e. cover up of sex and abuse scandals.

  22. Sylvain: You insist on consent because it protects you from having to admit you are actually advocating pedophilia is normal. That and beastiality. Fine, then you still have to allow polygamy, polyandry and necrophilia, plus marriage to inanimate objects, since consent by a table is impossible. And the table is in no way harmed by the marriage. It might actually make the table happy. So, you’re for all of this, right? It’s all consensual and that is your major criteria is seems. When can I expect to see you out campaigning for these rights for people?

    Your argument is also premised as it’s unfair to deny homosexuals marriage because it makes them unhappy and it’s judgmental. Yet you are most certainly judging my position and you don’t care if I’m unhappy or not. We have word for that—hypocrite.

    Don’t even get me started on “fairness”. Fairness is a concept that does not exist in the real world and people learn that when they mature—not everyone achieves that goal.

  23. This is an example of probably the most epic episode of mass heresy in recent memory. You have clergy admitting faggotry (I don’t use that word lightly), and essentially either abstaining from having an opinion or endorsing evil on this matter.

    No excommunication orders or inquests will come of this, and the sick, depraved population of Ireland will vote for this measure undoubtedly. The arrest of faithful Christians for hate crime is sure to follow shortly thereafter.

    Still though, I hope for justice and there is nothing wrong with hoping for justice. When one sees proud evil, he wishes for it to be punished, and I can wish for no less than tragedy to strike the people of Ireland in the name of the Lord God. This was not the doing of a parliament or activist court, this will be the first occasion on which the people will directly condemn themselves.

    The ‘priests’ especially who disgrace the Christian faith, are destined for the pit.

  24. “You guys can rationalize your irrational discomfort with homosexuality all you like, but no serious person will take you seriously.”

    Translation: human aversion to sodomy that dates back thousands of years is apparently ‘irrational’ and unfortunately we won’t be taken seriously by ‘Jersey McJones’. Oh no! Unfortunately for him, Reactionaries aren’t actually trying to get the approval of Modern dross, so please, don’t take opposition to this seriously and be on your way to deal with ‘serious’ people.

    @Sylvian – I sincerely hope you don’t call yourself a Christian at all, because your views are beyond contempt. God has called sodomy an abomination. That is the end of the discussion. You don’t get to overrule God. Your commitment to ‘fairness’ is frankly disgusting, and it is to imply that good is equal to evil. It is not. Good is SUPERIOR to evil, and of course garners more privileges because of that superiority.

    “you are yourself guilty of imposing your views on other.”

    Of course! This is what the entire purpose of a government is, to impose a viewpoint upon people. The question is not whether the state does or does not impose a viewpoint, but if the viewpoint is correct or not. It doesn’t matter if people ‘disagree’. If they disagree with God, they are wrong, because God is incapable of error. Such people deserve the oppression you lament because like thieves and cutthroats they have run afoul of God’s moral commands to mankind. Your moral relativism is as far from Christianity as one can get. Seek help.

  25. Shiri,

    You misunderstand something.

    Are pedophile, bestialist and other born that way. Probably and it has nothing to do with genes.

    The problem is that pedophilia is harmful to the child who has no understanding of what is happening. The harm cause to the child is well documented and his not really caused by the people around him. While the harm to LGBT is caused by the intolerance of people that are not concerned by their action.

    Bestiality can be harmful to the animal in some cases. Loving object doesn’t create any victim but the object doesn’t have any legal right .

  26. Also,

    It is not about the happiness of the gays but about their individual right. About fiscal advantages, medical right, and other advantage that marriage might provide.

    Again you are not force to marry a woman. You are not force to do anything for gays that you wouldn’t do for someone else. It is just not your business to care about who your neighbors love as long as their are no victim.

    What are you victim of? Shaming? If you should not be shamed by them why is it/was it okay for you to shame them?

  27. Mark,

    Are you idiotic enough to believe that god really said that sodomy was an abomination?

    God did not write the Bible. Fallible man wrote the Bible to serve their own desire and end. Evil only exist in mans heart because they believe in false God. God is everything and everywhere and in everyone which leaves no place for other than in men thought to believe that the devil exist. If you believe the Devil exist you believe in a false God.

  28. Sylvain: Yes, I realize that gay psychiatrists voted to remove being gay from the list of mental illnesses so they could continue being homosexual and a practicing psychiatrist. No conflict of interest there. I have no idea if there was a vote when it was declared a disease. However, I have always had a great deal of dislike for voting in illnesses. PTSD is actually Post Traumatic Stress Denial and turning into an “illness” did a disservice to the people who were told they had an illness.

    All of the “mental illnesses” have vague diagnostic criteria; the diagnoses are all over the board depending on who is doing the diagnosis. It’s as messed up as they come. Plus, it’s telling people they’re broken and sick when that may not be the case. Witness the highly over diagnosed ADHD because a kid can’t sit still on command.

    People who want to marry multiple partners. have sex with dead people, and marry inanimate objects are doing no harm to society, yet so far none of you “caring” people who want fairness have voiced your support for this. As I said before, if you’re not out there trying to rectify this discrimination, then I sincerely doubt you actually care about fairness at all. You are liberal and liberals all want gay marriage so you do to. Mindless adherence.

    You brought up two orientations I deliberately left out. You know you’re wrong and won’t admit it. Go back to the paragraph above and try again. Multiple partners and sex with corpses hurts no one. Actually, neither does sex with cars, tables, etc. So you are for legalizing this behaviour, right?
    Who said the partner has to have “legal rights”. You just keep adding and adding and adding in order to avoid unpleasant outcomes.

    I am a victim of bullying and labeling my disapproval as hate speech. I am called homophobic, which is asinine–I don’t fear homosexuals, but it’s a way to try and intimidate me. Read carefully: Someone is going to get bullied and shamed.
    You cannot avoid that and you are arbitrarily deciding that you get to pick who based on your own bigotry and dislikes. You are no different than what you accuse others of.

    Civil unions covered everything you noted in your first paragraph, so why are they not used??

    About your comment to Mark: So God was in Hitler, Stalin, Hurricane Katrina, Ganges Khan? There is no evil? You and Obama would get along well-he thinks ISIS is not a terrorist group, you think God is in ISIS. Unreal.

  29. “If they disagree with God, they are wrong, because God is incapable of error.”

    I’m not worried about what God thinks but what lunatics who claim to know what God Thinks, think (and do). The problem is that the people who think they speak for God are very capable of error. My way of viewing the matter is that if you’re not harming someone else, if someone else thinks what that person is doing will offend God, then the matter is between that person and God to sort out in due course. God doesn’t require any external assistance.

  30. @ Sylvain – “Are you idiotic enough to believe that god really said that sodomy was an abomination? God did not write the Bible. Fallible man wrote the Bible to serve their own desire and end. Evil only exist in mans heart because they believe in false God. God is everything and everywhere and in everyone which leaves no place for other than in men thought to believe that the devil exist. If you believe the Devil exist you believe in a false God.”

    You are a detestable liar. The Bible is the Holy Word of God, such as is confirmed by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. You have denied its truth to serve your own political agenda, and that is truly foul.

    @Will – “if someone else thinks what that person is doing will offend God, then the matter is between that person and God to sort out in due course.”

    Then you have embraced anarchism, which is fine, if you can hold to it consistently. Every moral question is a question about how our actions are seen by God. If you are of the mind that God’s will cannot be known, and therefore no institution of morality can be grounded in a knowable reality, then you cannot support any government which would move to prohibit any immoral practice. Essentially, that is the dissolving of government. You don’t get to carve out a special little exemption to say: “interfering with people who aren’t harming anyone is immoral… but we can’t know about any other moral questions so leave people alone.”

  31. Alan

    Results coming in now – 60-70% yes alas. If our own arch bishop would barely advocate a No, well … What does that say for the state of irish catholicism. The serpent is well and truly back. God help us.

  32. Briggs


    I must insist on a gentlemanly decorum.

  33. Will: Voting for morality. What more can I say…….Of course, that makes you agreeing with Sylvain that what is moral is what the law says, at least where people nominally vote in their representatives. Not in California, of course, where vote is just ignored and the liberal agenda declared morally correct, but over much of the US and Canada. So what is legal is moral? (Please note we did NOT vote for the Supreme Court, which in the end decides, so we did NOT vote this “morality” in except indirectly.)

    You specially singled out Conservative Christians. If you don’t want me thinking you are saying that’s the only group, add a few to show me you have others in mind, too.

    In regards to not harming anyone, the Mayor of Baltimore said it was only property and let the rioters destroy it. That seems to be the current mindset of the Elected Officials, which means we voted to allow property destruction, rioting and police just standing watch. We also voted that it is morally correct to redistribute wealth, allow children to terrorize schools, etc. etc. Voting for morality is very, very depressing.

  34. Mark,

    “The Bible is the Holy Word of God, such as is confirmed by the Son of God, Jesus Christ.”

    You realize that:

    1-The Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus, so he cannot confirm anything.
    The Torah did exist but was never cited by Jesus.
    2- The Bible was written to suit the requirement of the Emperor of the Roman Empire who as pontifex maximus was the head of the Church and considered himself God (i.e.: Above the Pope).
    3-None of the Gospel were written during the life of the apostle, Unless they lived pass 150 years old.
    4- There are no mention of Homosexuality in the New Testament before the last translation (which happened in the late 1800s. See here:

  35. Sheri,

    A vote is a potential measure of a people’s morals. It doesn’t create morality. Please don’t try to associate me with whatever silliness Sylvain believes at the moment. What is lawful and what is moral are not the same thing in Western culture, at least. (The two may me more closely aligned elsewhere, such as in Sharia Law.) I stopped reading anything Sylvain wrote some time ago because it became clear that he/she was simply expressing feelings, and then scrambling around looking for random factoids to bolster those feelings. You won’t learn anything useful from someone who puts feeling above thinking.

  36. Sheri Kimbrough

    Will: Okay, with that clarification, I agree. Voting does reflect whatever the society thinks is in line with their morality or lack thereof.

  37. Sylvain

    I find it very strange that 16 years old kids were able to understand what I wrote, while American adult can.

    Maybe there’s a reason why American scores so low internationally.

  38. Sylvain


    I find your belief much more immoral than the vote the Irish took.

  39. Sheri Kimbrough

    Sylvain: Maybe 16 year olds are irrational and have a poor command of the language.

    Unless you do something other than disgree with my stance with no rebuttal, I really don’t care what you think. Give me a rational argument against my stance and I’ll reconsider. The fact that you don’t agree is not relevent. I might have Hitler was more moral than Obama, but it don’t make it true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *