The Yes Campaign.
It means nothing Twomey.
To me.
Suit yourselves.
Irish people resent being bullied by either Church or State. Yet, ordinary citizens are being intimidated into voting “Yes”. For over a year, the campaign waged by the Government urged on by the media has been relentless. In the final weeks, reason may triumph over emotion. As they prepare to vote, people will ask, reasonably: what are we being asked to change? The simple answer is: human nature.
This referendum touches the very source of our humanity. Human rights are at the heart of the Constitution. Article 41 recognises the family, based on marriage, as the fundamental unit group in Society.
As such it has rights which are intrinsic to it, which the State is obliged to recognise and protect. In other words, the family, which existed before either Church or State existed, not only has a real autonomy within society: it is the ultimate source of society.
Past and future converge in the family. Through marriage, future generations come into being. A nation’s culture is passed on primarily through the family. Since the dawn of time, the union of man and woman was simply assumed to be the origin of the family. This is what we are being asked to change.
Dr Vincent Twomey
hitler, stalin, mao and marx. franco, pol pot and mussolini will be disappointed.
a very wise priest once said: “I’m not a fascist, I’m a priest. Fascists dress in black and go around telling people what to do, whereas…priests…”
what have a priest and a pint of guinness got in common?
a bad one will tear the hole off ya
Funniest thing I’ve read in ages. Brilliant! Thanks
Through marriage, children come into being? Oh dear. Do mammies and daddies who love each other very much have news for poor old Vinne!
Anyone got some smelling salts? At his age, it could be quite the shock.
He’s a priest, don’t tell him that kinda thing, he’ll just get upset and confused.
What the no side have an objection to is homosexuality, plain and simple. Of course they don’t want to come out and say this so they pretend they are concerned about the effects on marriage and children.
That’s for sure. And most of the no side have an objection to sex…unless it’s for making babies and the lights are off.
A contender for the most stupid thing I have read since this poo started!
Can we change human nature with a vote? that’d be handy alright
Very. We could do away with the blind following of multi billion euro organisations that systematically oppress the people who follow them.
What, Like apple?
Fcuking hell that’s poor.
Yes.
Yestapo? Heh! What about the Nozis though?
+1 like this.
Bravo!
“In other words, the family, which existed before either Church or State existed, not only has a real autonomy within society: it is the ultimate source of society.”
So the family existed before civil marriage or the sacrament of marriage. So how precisely will changing civil marriage have any effect on it whatsoever? Never seen as much meaningless waffle as I’ve seen coming out of the likes of this man in the last few months. Intangible, insubstantial poppycock.
Civil marriage codified marriage for the state. So changing civil marriage now is a change to marriage.
Except that’s not what he’s saying is it.
So was the introduction of divorce, the criminalisation of marital rape and the ending of the marriage ban in the public service. All improvements.
This referendum redefines marriage in the same way universal suffrage redefined voting, before a voter was a gender specific term, now it’s inclusive, and men still vote as before.
If you ask me, it all started to go down hill with the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870. What kind of marriage is it if the woman can own stuff??
The theme emerging from the No side is that they are being denied the right to be heard (despite the captive audience in churches, the paid newspaper columnists in Irish Times, Independent, their own papers in the Irish Catholic, Alive! rag, own radio station, Spirit Radio, plus TV channel EWTN, countless websites from proxy groups all seemingly connected to the institute we dare not name least they sue).
And maybe someone should take him aside and explain that all children are not a result of marriage and not all marriages result in children…
He’s more right than wrong, in fairness.
So it’s just a question of whether we want to make the change or not.
He isn’t.
In all the words he writes, the only bit that is right is the bit where we are being asked to change something.
He is in his hole.
Well… From his perspective, that would be an ecumenical matter.
And ecumenism is horse$hit….
No he isn’t. He’s wrong about everything. There is a single thing he’s correct about. He might as well change his name to Dr Errorballs he is so in err.
Well why doesn’t he get married and have some kids if he’s so concerned about it. Let him put his willy where is mouth is.
wait…
How many marriages have you solemnised? How many young couples have you advised? How many couples going through turbulent times have you had knocking on your door asking for help and guidance? Are you a professor with teaching and research duties? He knows quite a lot about marriage. Sure, he’s taken vows of celibacy, but he would know a lot more about certain aspects of marriage than Joe and Mary have ever contemplated, let alone experienced. Having wise and holy people like Fr Twomey in society strengthens marriage and society as a whole and brings us all closer to our Maker. It’s easy to poke fun at priests (poking fun, sometimes persecuting Christians has been happening for centuries) – it’s even fashionable (according to the Irish Times at least) to mock men (yes, especially evil men) in contemporary Irish society. Mock those who have dedicated their lives to following in the footsteps of Christ and serve the community they minister in. Great fun altogether. Great for the aul hit count.
If you want to criticise a great mind like Fr Twomey – go and do it publicly and at an intellectual level that is informed and intellectually honest. I suspect very, very few people here have anywhere near the capability to reason against Catholic teaching on the nature of marriage, the family and human relations.
I know I don’t. Is “hit count” a typo?
Here’s what you either don’t get or are simply unwilling to accept, most people don’t give a rats ass about what the catholic church thinks on these or any other matters. So you can blather on until your blue in the face about the catholic church this and the catholic church that…..nobody cares.
I don’t believe in any god or higher being. Why should I take on the advice of a man who has consciously taken on the decision not to get married? I’m lucky in that I got to marry the one I love, therefore I imagine I know quite a bit more than Fr. Twomey about marriage. Bearing that in mind, I don’t see how a man who has zero (because apart from officiating over weddings, that’s what he has) expierence in marriage and as I said chose not to marry, can tell two people who love each other that their union is not real and shouldn’t be recognised because in my opinion that’s the basis of their argument.
At the risk of further entrenching them in their ways, any priest would use careful language when talking to a person with declared homosexual inclinations. But yes, a homosexual “marriage” is not real and is not a marriage and is not recognised by the church for many rational reasons. This is not new thinking. It is very well thought through. There is nothing that might alter basic truths and the fundamental understanding of the nature of human relations, marriage and the family.
Ah yes, those rational reasons that are only ever alluded to. Are you and the rest of the no campaign going to make a big Columbo-esque reveal on the eve of the referendum and blow us all out of the water?
what the hell are you spouting ?
Paragraph 1 and 4 are obviously bollocks, but paragraph 2 and 3 are pretty much factual (minus some hyperbole).
No they aren’t. Lets get down to facts. sentence by sentence.
” the family, which existed before either Church or State existed, not only has a real autonomy within society: it is the ultimate source of society.”
Anyone which a basic understanding of history knows that the definition of family has constantly changed from society to society and period to period. It is factually incorrect to try and say that marriage between one man and one woman has been a constant in human evolution.
“Through marriage, future generations come into being. ”
no, through sexual intercourse they come into being. This happens outside marriage as much as he would like to deny it.
“A nation’s culture is passed on primarily through the family.”
Simplistic nonsense. Culture is interfamilial and no way predicated on the gender of individual members
“Since the dawn of time, the union of man and woman was simply assumed to be the origin of the family.”
Or more correctly one man and many women. Even in his own holy book the model is polygamy and in few western countries was the polygamous nature of family longest held than in the Irish tuath. The model he is espousing is only the most recent incarnation of ‘family’ and since divorce is legal, one that already is extinct.
“This is what we are being asked to change.”
No it isnt. Opening up marriage to homosexuals in no way changes the marriage of heterosexuals, the rights of heterosexuals or their familial or cultural bonds
That was interesting, informative, erudite, measured, well written … what the hell are you doing on Broadsheet?!
b00l0x
More like it!
Huh? I thought individual people were the fundamental unit of society? I wasn’t aware families are like some organism with all members walking in lockstep.
Read the constitution then.
The constitution says families , that doesn’t change the fact society is made up of individuals.
The constitution says the “fundamental unit group” is the family.
Which is different to saying the fundamental unit.
This isn’t pedantry either.
Individuals exist without families. Families don’t exist without individuals
Are you arguing something?
The constitution says “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.” but nowhere does it define the family. That means that it doesn’t limit the definition of family to man, woman and X offspring. One parent, two parents, adopted parents, foster parents, step parents and gay parents all help make up families in Ireland.
The constitution also says “All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.”
They certainly are. It is the individual that contributes to society.
The Irish obsession with ‘family’ being a relic of Catholic Ireland and which is stifling to so many.
The obsession with family is not an Irish thing. Nor is it a relic of catholisim. Cop on.
There most definitely is a uniquely Irish Catholic obsession….. what about the treatment of children born outside marriage, the rights of women, the ban on contraception the stigmatising of single parents and their children??? I need not go on.
Have you never seen Eastenders? It’s all about the faaaaaaaaaammmmlllllyyyyy!!!!!!
Oi, repre – you’re avin’ a turkish..!
You’ll also know then that the definition of family is something that varies a lot throughout history. It has a lot in common with tribalism.
Families are important, so he opposes recognising gay families as families. Oh-kay.
He just believes in the primacy of a man marrying marrying his womb and the non-man carrying said womb.
Quit trying to force him into the closet!
A lecture on bullying from a uniformed catholic? MMMMM no.
Hmmmm…. me neither.
Yet another entitled patriarch who interprets open dissent and/or complete disregard as ‘bullying’. It’s not bullying Vincent, it’s loss of unquestioned authority. Get used to it.
+2015
One of the main reasons that the catholic elite south of the border and the Orange “Never” brigade north of it have far more in common that either of them would like to admit.
+1
+1
+1
+1
such was my outrage at the priest’s parsimonious pronouncements i meant to post B0LL0X
I keep asking, but I still havent heard one civil reason to Vote No.
Its also time for the governement to look again at the Charity status of the Catholic church, my understanding is they do not pay Tax , reason being that they should be all inclusive to citizens, which they are stating over and over again that they are not.
Me, too. I don’t understand it. Seemingly there are lots of non-homophobic, perfectly sensible reasons to vote no, but every time I ask for a selection or even just one of those reasons, it’s called bullying.
The reasons I’ve heard so far are mainly blatant lies, sly distortions and utterly disingenuous so I’m not holding out any hope of being convinced that voting no is an ethical, moral, intelligent, practical or defensible stance.
This article from a Gay man voting no is the closest I’ve seen to a decent argument for voting no but it is not convincing
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html
The last we’ll see if the likes of him, take nite, future generations will be incredulous that such opinions were held.
1.2 billion catholics and more priests than there has EVER been in history would beg to differ mthead.
What an irrelevant post. What has the growth in catholic market share in the developing world have to do with Ireland, where priests are dying off (thank f**k), mass attendance is falling and the census number of catholics is dropping?
It was a comment on mthead’s “the last we’ll see” remark. We live in a globalised world ahjayzis.always good to keep things in perspective.
Fortunately most Catholics aren’t fundies like the Mathunas over on capel st.
I think bearing mind that this especially regressive, cancerous form of catholicis patriarchy native to Ireland is holed below the waterline is the more useful perspective than pondering on the growth in the third world.
Well – they’ve moved out of Capel Steet. Apparently the new offices are somewhere near Merrion Square
Have the government called a referendum to ban marriage between men and b̶r̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶r̶e̶s̶ women?
Clearly we should take this seriously, this geriatric virgin who’s worked a day in his life knows his stuff.
Well we got a leaflet in the door yesterday basically saying that mothers will be banned now, so I think that’s the wicked subtext that no-one except these fellas understand.
I don’t see his problem really, sure didn’t they try to ban un-wed motherhood decades ago?
The ‘No’ posters I’m seeing around claiming that children need their mothers for more than the nine months of pregnancy conveniently erase this era from their memories. The time when the church felt it was necessary to take a new born baby away from their mother because she was not married. Obviously back then, the nine months was fine, eh?
This jacka55 just collapsed his own argument. “The family existed before Church or State”. Yup it sure did – those institutions only imposed formal recognition of civil unions in order to enforce structures regarding legitimate inheritance and the like. And actually, contrary to his arguments about families (in his context mammy + daddy + kids) being the fundamental units of society, there are plenty of examples of societies worldwide who deviate from mother + father + kids e.g. polygamous muslims, polyandrous tibetan tribes. Also regarding his statement that “through marriage future generations come into being”, lest we forget, the mothers of those children who happened to have been born outside the confines of Church-sanctioned marriages but of course also make up these future generations, were put into the Magdalene laundries and such by the same institution. The only interest the Church has ever had in marriage is to keep a stranglehold of the constituent members of the resulting families, and God help (or not) anyone who strays outside of their grasp.
polyandrous tibetan tribes! sure donchaknow they’re pure savages ignorant of the word of our lord and saviour babby jeebus — tis only the white, Christian European way which is truly strong, correct and pure.
So according to him we’re being asked to examine an assumption that’s gone unchallenged for millennia. Imagine that.
Maynooth “University”. LOL like Theology is a legitimate degree.
So Waterford IT can’t get University status but a priest ridden think-in can get it no problem.
Its separated in to the priest-ridden bit and the subpar regional university bit fairly cleanly now, admin-wise at least.
Lord fricking help any of these people if they ever experience real bullying.
It’s going to be a long fuppin’ three weeks.
yeah. but i hold out hope that the louder and more hysterically the no side shrieks, the more they’ll disgust fence-sitters into voting yes.
That shrieking theory could go either way. Careful what you wish for.
How can you be intimidated into voting anything? It’s a private ballot. Jeez!
The only way this priest can relate to the changes in Irish society is to think in terms of his own church’s behaviour in the past?
He knows first hand now what it’s like being a minority and feeling or being maltreated and ‘caged’. It can be lethal. Literally.
But the penny hasn’t dropped with him, obviously. And probably never will. His loss.
Can someone PLEASE create a handy chart to show where regular broadsheet commentators stand on popular issues to save us having to read all this stuff. It will also come in handy as a sadometer to calibrate the tragicness of us caring what people we don’t know with made up names think on a scale of nought to squidillion.
Yes an infograph!
There is a typo here Ultach this lad wanted to be bulled by the Yestapo. Skidoo Barbe Bleue gives great strong heifers with a lengthy lactation http://www.charolais.ie/newspdf/122/pdf1.pdf
Aye, but the’re not aisy calvin’ the Charolies. More than likely you’d need the vit til cut her an thon boys not chaip.
Ah right, I see now what ya did there Joseph. Chortles.
lol the intolerant in preaching for tolerance shocker
He can burn in the hell of his own making
Marriage/ family/partnership/religion/politics, school, university……all cults designed to control and oppress the “real” soul who lives beneath the conditioned, government owned entity ( human person) that’s been filled with bullshit the minute it’s birth was registered.
Why do so many people need to be ” validated” by a contract of marriage”? If you love a person, just love them and if you stop loving them, don’t stop loving forever. The “institution of marriage” is exactly that…an institution. If we all stopped being married to another person, love has nothing to do with it, the world economy wouldn’t function the way it is currently designed. Don’t you all get it?
Get married, reproduce yourself…. more than once preferably. Then you are locked in, to a life of servitude..happy little consumers with a lifetime of debt and you and your children are owned by the state. Marriage is to keep you chained in your invisible Jail cells with your soul mate or rather, Cell mate. Abolish marriage, in fact it should be illegal to any independent thinking soul, gay or not gay.