And, also, if the sole reason of marriage is to procreate naturally as a couple, would she agree that couples incapable of having a child for whatever health reason should be barred from getting married? Seems she has a very limited view of what marriage is!

Which would include her own!

See the comment on the natural law.

Yes, shame on me and the woman I used to be married to!

Shameful

She’s less entitled to air her biggot opinions when she’s spokesperson for equality. This is embarrassingly shameful.

IIRC infertility is a valid reason for an annulment in the RC church, and you can’t get married if you’ve had a vasectomy. Kinda suggests that Lucinda Creighton’s thinking is heavily informed by Catholic teaching

Impotence is grounds for an annulment, because no valid marriage can be contracted if either party is unable to perform the marriage act, that is canon law. Infertility or sterility is not grounds for annulment, unless deception or dishonesty was involved.

And why not?

Michael, why not? Because it’s a lie.
God made Adam and male goat.
Then he made Eve.

When God created Adam He created a draft, as all good artists do, but when He created woman He created His masterpiece!

Challenged to do what? Honest question here, what do you want Fine Gael TDs and candidates in favour of equality to say? When you say “for years”, you mean for less than a decade, as it was not on the political agenda before then, or at least I don’t think it was. The party was willing to let Charlie Flanagan as Justice Spokesperson all during the Civil Partnership debate point out the deep deficiencies in the bill and hope that it would be a step toward marriage rights. “Many countries have gone further and legislated for same sex marriage, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Norway and South Africa. Ireland is part of a growing trend towards a more rights-driven world that permits and celebrates difference. I am pleased Ireland is moving in that direction.” 3/12/09, Vol. 697, No. 1, Col. 114

Civil marriage. No groups, even the Gay Rights ones, have proposed any Church should be legally obliged to perform gay marriage.

Civil marriage Duh

out with them????. why not round up everone who has an opinion that’s different than yours and gas them all???

Ah, Godwin’s Law. Fail!

“Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives? Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church”?

I as a practising Catholic, emphatically disagree with Lucinda’s comments. Please don’t assume that because I choose to practise my faith that I am “backward”. I think that all people have the right to express their love for each other through the medium of marriage and I am sick of people assuming that because I am religious that I am therefore small minded.

@Catrina I think he’s making the backward reference in relation to the deference given in Irish law to the Catholic Church rather than the faith itself.

You are quite correct that marriage ica be viewed as a force for the common good in society, in that stable longlasting marriages by their very nature add stability to society as a whole. People can be more inclined to be more productive within societal structures when they make these connections and commitments to their spouse. Obviously this can also have a stabilising effect on any children which are also part of the marriage unit. But you are quite wrong when you say that this stabilising effect of marriage cannot be opened up to same-sex couples in the same way. More people forming stable marriages would surely lead to an even greater stabilising effect within societal structures and towards the children who are being raised by same-sex parents. Whether people like it or not or whether you agree with it there are a number of gay parents already raising children in this country. These children are as deserving as any other children to the stability and security that marriage offers their peers. Furthermore, to continue your point regarding the common good within society, extending access to Civil Marriage here would enshrine in Law that all citizens are equal, as declared by the Constitution and neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals are less derserving of equality, respect or dignity. Unfortunately we still in this country have horrendous homphobic bullying particularly towards and amongst children, teenagers and young adults. If enacting legislation to grant the sames rights to gay people as straight people sends a strong enough message to the bigotted or ignorant who partake in this abuse and saves even one young person from being the target of that abuse, then surely that would be worth it in the “common good”.

The whole concept of self-preservation is a priority for any living creature in the world. Only hetreosexual couples can provide the stability and the confidence that humanity will continue to survive. It is for this reason that marriage was construed and it is for this reason that it relates to the common good. Children can only come into being through the male sperm and the female egg. Whilst I would also agree that children are being raised by same sex couples perhaps successfully, (though this has yet to be proven) it has to be remembered that children are not a commodity. No one has the right to have a child not even a hetreosexual couple.

As regards homophobic bullying that is a matter of ignorance and no legislation can correct this. Nonetheless education in schools can and should teach that all human beings should be respected and afforded the dignity that comes with being human regardless of their sexuality. On the same lines it would appear that Lucinda Creighton is being subject to untold abuse on facebook from unfortunately some of those very people who are hoping to have marriage enshrined in the constitution. Unfortunately to be abusive seems to be part of the whole human make up.

If as many of us appear to believe that marriage was established as a social construct on the basis that it was a good institution for the preservation of society I fail to understand why civil partnership is not acceptable to gay people. Is it just the case that because they are deprived of ‘marriage’ in the traditional sense it is something that they desire?

Actually, you want Paul’s writings on why Marriage is a detraction from godliness there, Jon.

No-one is disputing her freedom of speech here. She is marginalising a large part of our society and advocates denying them their rights. It’s no different then denying people entry into a bar because of their race.

“No-one is disputing her freedom of speech here.” See the posts below and the responses on Twitter where she’s effectively told to shut up.

As I said before I disagree with her, but I applaud her for revealing this view before the election. Many other candidates from all parties share the same sentiments, but would not reveal them in public. I wish all politicans were as honest.

At least she is honest about her views and people can criticise her here and decide not to vote for her.

I’m with you Ryan, it’s good to know that people know her stance on the issue and can make a more informed decision before the election but i still cant see any comments here saying that she has no right to say what she said, she’s just getting a lot of abuse for it, partly because her particular argument (re:children) is flawed and is ripe for the picking.

I don’t know about honesty. If she was honest she wouldn’t be using the “marriage is about procreation line”, it’s a nonsense argument for people who are morally against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. The reason she has said she isn’t against civil partnership is because of the number of co-habiting heterosexual couples who wouldn’t vote for her out of fear of her reversing civil partnership. Civil marriage granted new rights to heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones, if you ask me that’s why she’s against it. I’d have more respect for her if she’d just come out and say what she means and she does not mean that she thinks marriage is about procreation, she thinks it’s about a man and a woman getting married.

It’s nothing new. Her close association with ultra right-wing group – The Iona Institute – is well known. Her comments parrot the view of this group.

I can’t Believe so many disagree w

Ryan, the problem with Lucinda Creighton espousing those opinions is that she is the Fine Gael spokesperson on equality. Of course she is entitled to her own personal opinions on the issue of same-sex marriage. However, one would expect that as her party’s spokesperson on equality, she would have views which were a little more defensible. Other posters here have pointed out the many flaws in the viewpoint she expressed. If marriage is about procreation and children, then why are couples unable to conceive allowed to be married? Why are couples who do not wish to have children allowed to be married? Why is contraception allowed? More to the point, what about the same-sex couples currently raising children in Ireland? If marriage is all about children, why aren’t they afforded the full protection of Irish law like their heterosexual counterparts? If Lucinda Creighton’s religious convictions compel her to oppose same-sex marriage, but as an elected member of the oireachtas and her party’s spokesperson on equality, A) she is obliged to subordinate her religious beliefs to the important principle of the separation of church and state, and B) she is obliged to be sufficiently on top of her brief as to be able to present arguments that weren’t dismantled as long ago as the mid-1990s. If she is as woefully ill-equipped to deal with this important issue, I want to know who else in FG is as badly up to speed on their brief. I can only conclude that she is dim. I will not vote for a party that appoints dim people to important positions.

You could say she was being honest…. Or you could say she was being clever and sneaky!! I don’t believe it was a careless honest tweet that she expected to lose her and the party votes. Personally I believe she couldn’t be that stupid. She was more likely to have been looking for support from those who are still prejudiced against same-sex marriage. I think it’s important that people are aware of what she may have done here. People need to take their vote seriously now as Fine Gael are very likely to come into government. People who are against Fine Gael need to use their votes in order to cancel out the votes of those who are against same-sex marriage.

Perhaps a little researching on the matter should be undertaken to help you understand the menopause and why it is the marriage continues to remain valid.

wow. you got 16 ‘thumbs up’s. Pat yourself on the back there. Now go to some other forums and make some popular, crowd pleasing comments. Who said she denied anyone anything??? How did she? She just has an opinion that you don’t agree with so she’s ‘short sighted’ and she has no ‘logic’.

You seem a little angry there Eamon.
She is married – as a potential TD she has stated that other adults in this country should not be allowed to marry the person of their choice. Thus, she is in favour of denying them a right that she claims for herself.
So yes, she is shortsighted. There is no logic in her position.

Michael O Byrne I could not have said it better myself! Fine Gael will win this election because people want traditional family values.

It’s narrow minded people like you that is what’s wrong with Irish society.

@Michael

‘Finally, it is now accepted – recent studies have show – that there is no such things as a ” gay gene “.’

Try to limit your comment to things you understand.

Most professionals believe that being gay, just as being straight, is an innate and intrinsic biological fact. This scientific consensus has emerged in recent years. It is also well known that this is not due to a single gene – in fact very few characteristics are. It is a combination of a genetic contribution and factors in the womb. Some of the evidence/scientific face to support this was recently reported in large piece in the Irish Times (Dr Alan Dibble. Friday 7th May 2010).

It might be easier for you to dehumanise gay people by convincing yourself that it is a ‘deviant choice’, but you are only fooling yourself.

Markeen McCarron, what you say is totally untrue. I never accused anybody of making a ” deviant choice ” , but I believe people make wrong choices. The health consequences for the vast majorityof homosexual males and females , many of them leading to premature death, is a good reason to advise against entering such a lifestyle. You choose your own experts to suit your viewpoint, but the medical evidence on the early death of male homosexuals is evidence enough for me. There is neither a single gene or a number of genes propelling people to such an inclination. As far as medical and scientific experts are concerned they have been proved wrong time and time again. One example is that foryears campaigned for mothers to use mad made formulas to feed their children rather than their own breast milk, but today they promote the latter becase they have been discredited by the evidence.

@Michael.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

As I pointed out. One doesn’t decide to ‘enter the lifestyle’. Sexuality, both heterosexual and homosexual, is not a choice. It is an inherent part of your identity. And, it has a genetic basis.

I am a scientist familiar with this evidence. And my views constitute the views of nearly all medical and scientific professionals in the area. You’re simply wrong.

God did not create marriage, humanity did. It predated Judaism by several thousand years.
You are attempting to enshrine your religious beliefs in law, something which is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

Your statement that “there is no such thing as a gay gene, therefore nobody is predetermined to be homosexual” is a non-sequitor. There is no logical follow through on that statement. Hormone washes during pregnancy impact the neurological development of the baby, with no genetic difference, and the /neurological/ evidence that gay people are fundamentally biologically different to straight people is incontrovertable. Instead of commenting on your opinions as though they were objective truth, might I suggest that you actually go out and do some kind of academic research before commenting on the matter?

FURTHERMORE, if you /really/ want to bring Jesus Christ into this, then be very careful that your scripture is up to scratch. Because I very much doubt it is.

Markeen McCarron, so you’re a scientist? And scientists have never been wrong, never misinterpreted or manipulated the evidence? I think that scientists have been guilty of all three at various times and for many reasons. But as we are not going to agree I see no point in further comment on my part, therefore you can have the final word.

Michael, you are a hypocrite. And I think we know what Scripture says about hypocrites and God’s view on them, don’t we. It’s job 13:16 in case you can’t recall off hand. This is further supported by Matt 7:3 and then there’s the good old favourite Law of Agape, which you are flagrantly and willingly violating.
You are a sham of a Christian, you violate the Grace that Christ died to bestow upon you by your prideful hateful attitudes.

The Irish bishops, archbishops, Religious Superiors and at least two Irish cardinals supported and facilitated clergy colleagues who had abused children – and when there weren’t enough children being incarcerated in the abusive Institutions they started to ‘tout’ for children by complaining to the politicians of both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail about the judiciary not incarcerating enough children. And both of those parties facilitated the abuse of children in the Institutions – there were enough contemporary reports from their officials stating that these abusive Institutions were calamitous for the incarcerated children.

These Irish bishops, archbishops, Religious Superiors and at least two Irish cardinals decided that only some children were deemed fit to be treated with dignity and respect; and any children or families that fell outside their narrow definition of ‘family’ was fair game for their clergy colleagues to rape, to bugger, to torture, to starve, and to enslave.

No more will we take that organisation’s vile teachings on human relationships.

Firstly, Eamon, I just gave you a thumbs up. Hope the makes you feel happier.

Secondly, you say Catholics are always discriminated against here? For real? Up until very recently, the Catholic Church practically ran this country, and they still have a massive say in how things are done today.

Nobody here has questioned any individuals faith. Nobody has said it is wrong to be Catholic (I’m sure the majority here are!). I don’t understand why you are bringing the Church’s abuse history into this either. And I’m quite sure the women who posted on here so far wear bras for the most part.

You seem to have a very flawed view of us “PC” folk. We don’t give a crap what you believe, you’re entitled to believe what you want. However, don’t go throwing a hissy-fit and shouting “discrimination” when people get fed up of the Churches rules and “ethos” having an impact on people who have not signed up to it and do not believe in it.

There is a difference between people disagreeing with your worldview and people discriminating against you.

Finally, there are plenty of Catholics, many devout, that support equality in many ways. Fair play to them.

Sure celibate men in lace and dresses pontificating on human sexuality is totally normal …. unless you’re Fr. Maciel or Bishop Eamon Casey or Fr Michael Cleary ….

I guess I’m not an idiot then seeing as I used my name and photo in my post. I did give you a ‘thumbs down’ though because I don’t agree with you. Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even us PC liberals and SMUG atheists (I dont wear a bra unfortunately so I can’t burn one). The reality is that Creighton has a warped view of marriage being for making babies. Of course what she really means is that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals but its safer for her to dress up her argument with the tired old marriage is for making babies bull crap. And this creature is the spokesperson for equality? Give me a break!

People should not be using their own names or photos as much as possible on the internet, it’s the smart thing to do. Don’t try and legitamise your argument by suggesting people who use a pseudonym (on the internet) don’t have a valid opinion.This is a non-issue.

Suggesting also that people only want to be PC is ridiculous. Some people just actually believe that you can love whoever you want, regardless of gender and be afforded the same rights as everyone else. It just might be that this is the majority opinion and it would seem so, at least amongst the demographic of readers of this website.

Weren’t'/aren’t these paedophiles in the RC ” gay ” since most of the abusers were adult men and the abused male boys? Or is that a politically incorrect assertion?

Michael O’Byrne its not only politically incorrect to assert that, its also false. Pedophilia is a paraphillia unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality . Research has failed to find a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Most pedophiles are men, although researchers believe the percentage of female pedophiles is under-rated and under-reported. In fact the majority of male pedophiles are neither homosexual or heterosexual and have exclusive sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (look up Jenny et al 1994, Freund et al 1992, Groth and Gary 1992….the list is endless). In the case of adolescent children there is no evidence that gay men or gay women are more or less likely to abuse their positions of power for sexual abuse (the difference between pedophiles and these abusers is slight but exists) than heterosexual males and females. While sex abuse and harassment no doubt does exist between males and males it also exists between males and females and females and females. In case you havent noticed the RC follows a policy of gender segregation where pedophile priests and nuns have (had?) easier access to children of their own sex. As the pedophiles who went into the priesthood naturally had more access to male children then it follows that more boys were sexually abused than girls. Its not too hard to work out when you think about it. Don’t strain yourself too hard though.

Other denominations do not follow a gender segregation. But I accept some of what you say in relation to pedophilia in the paraphilia aspect of it. However it is a fact that at least 50% of seminarians for the Roman Catholic priesthood in the USD at the present time are homosexuals. This cannot be something new and the logical conclusion has to be that at least some of the abusers were bona fide homosexuals.

I would think more than 50% are gay. In fairness its a great cover for the repressed closet case whose mammies and daddies would have a conniption if they came out. If you throw in society’s disapproval then the priesthood provided (provides?) the perfect cover. Very sad, but very true. Apparently the Vatican is quite the night spot if you are gay. Now with regards to the abusers being homosexuals – I dont dispute that, but there is no evidence that more are homosexual than heterosexual. There is a difference between pedophiles who abuse pre-pubescent children (who tend not have a sexual preference for men or women) and child abusers who abuse adolescents (who tend to be gender specific in their abuse targets). So yes there are homosexual men and women who abuse children just as there are heterosexual men and women who abuse children. People get so irate about this topic (me included) as for too long homosexuals have been and still are persecuted and discriminated against by the ignorant and intolerant. The scurrilous and downright false ‘link’ between homosexuality and pedophilia that has been pushed by the far right for too long in a vicious smear campaign only serves the purpose of continuing discrimination, intolerance and ignorance.

Citations, please.
And not from ‘numerous websites’- I’d like something reputable and peer-reviewed, thanks.

If you bother to look you’ll find them

That is if you care or are interested in the first place. Approaching the question with an open mind would be a good start.

Michael, burden of proof is on you for your statements. It is not for us to determine that you are telling the truth when you are challenged. We do not do your research for you. You do.

I love the hypocrisy. She is entitled to her freedom of speech (nobody here denies that!), yet when people disagree with her, they are trying to take her freedom away from here by exercising their freedom?

What do you think a gay couple should do then? Shut up and put up?

She’s entitled to say whatever she wants. It’s when she legislates – or doesn’t – in line with her views, rather than human rights, that I disagree. If FG get into power, this will very likely become the country’s position on gay marriage, and so we’ll be stuck in an unfair, unequal situation for another five years.

Does Eamon know what the word “Hypocrisy” means?

I disagree 100% with what you have to say here, Eamon. I’ve given out about Lucinda’s backwards (and, yes, they are backwards; there’s no denying this!) views on both Twitter and Facebook over the past few days. I do so openly and loudly, not anonymously at all. I am in her constintuency and so far Lucinda nor anyone from her camp have come canvassing for her. I very much wish she would come to canvass so that I can put my views to her before the election on friday. I’ve even sent her messages asking where she is canvassing during the week so that I can meet her in person. However, replies haven’t been forthcoming. So if anyone is being a coward, it looks like it’s Lucinda.

What happened to the male sperm and the female egg required to having a baby?

Who ever said that the individuals you named are right? Have the manner in which they have conducted themselves led to happiness or misery in the lives of the many people affected?

When people actually put some thought into who they want running the country. FG/FF are the staus quo and are nicely snuggled up with the Church. That whole things need to be broken up in Berlin Wall-esque fashion for things to finally change.

Most of these posts are overlooking a simple fact. Partnership is NOT Marriage. Stop confusing the two. Marriage can NOT be physically achieved by Same sex couples. They cannot ever hope to procreate of themselves alone. At best Same sex couples can have a life-long or if they wish/believe an eternal binding of souls, and this should not to be degraded, rather recognised and applauded when the couple are sincere. Oh that all marriages were themselves sincere.

As far as I am concerned marriage is the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. I am not oblivious to the the call for homosexual union in marriage. There is no doubt these are good people just like everybody else. Nevertheless regardless of many comments, all showing great insight and educated balance, it makes no sense to have marriage other than what it is described above. Considering the amount of children born within marriage between man and woman I can see no problem either in stating that within marriage and family children are formed in a more balanced and desirable way.

Some marriages are terrible, however the function of marriage is clear enough. I have heard many Gay partners say they believed this themselves. Marriage between man and woman is a social reality for thousands if years so why drag the Church into it? Would have expected more from these comments.

Brendan

Where did you learn your excellent debating skills?

Do you really believe in Adam and Eve? Whacky. Wouldn’t their kids have had to do it with each other to keep reproducing like? Messed up thing to base your morals on in my opinion!!

I can’t believe you actually used the “Adam and Steve” analogy!!! It’s people with thoughts like yours that stop things from moving on in this country.

God didn’t make Adam and Eve! There is no God, there was no Adam and there was no Eve. It’s just a story!

Actually, God did not make Adam and Eve. Please re-read Genesis. God made Adam and male goat. Eve came later.

Doh, i swore i hit “Reply”, sorry!

“Mark Phillips, People who aren’t catholics should keep their nose out of catholic teachings. IF YOU DON’T PLAY THE GAME THEN DON’T MAKE THE RULES. ”

Em. I don’t they’re trying to play the “Catholic game”, despite how fun that must be. No. Instead, they’re trying to live their lives happily without the Catholic Church preying on their affairs!

You really think it’s gay people “sticking their noses” in Catholic teachings? As far as I can see, they just want the Church to stay away from their lives and no interfere with their legal rights (or lack thereof).

Learn to use the reply function when you inevitably come back to make more points IN CAPS. If we go by your logic, people who can’t use the interface of a website properly “should not be allowed to comment on ANYTHING” on said website.

No one is putting their noses into Catholic teachings. Catholics are free to believe whatever they wish.

What people are asking for is for people to keep their personal prejudices, whether based on religion or not, out of the legal sphere and especially out of people’s human rights. Be as prejudiced as you want, just don’t enshrine it in law.

You ARE joking me Eamon – when did Gandhi ever wear an Stole, Amice, Biretta, Chasuble, Maniple, Alb, Cincture AND pontificate on human sexuality? When did he ever lay down laws as to which child should enjoy human dignity, the love of parents who care and which child should be enslaved by celibates wearing Stoles, Amices, Birettas, Chasubles, Maniples, Albs, Cinctures?

I think she kind of is saying everyone should go along with it. That’s what the effect of someone being a legislator is when it comes to an issue like this. Unless she were to give an indication that she wouldn’t vote against any attempt to change the law to allow gay couples to marry.

By Protestant, you mean a la carte. As long as people baptize and confirm their children as Roman Catholics, they’re not Protestant.

No. The argument isn’t about the word, it’s about whether people ought to be treated equally or not.

I’ve kinda missed the boat on replies now, but sure that’s life

Mark, lots of people on here is assuming that Lucinda Creighton has an anti-equality agenda because she defines marriage as “primarily about procreation”. If she has, then fair enough, I’m against that … but a large number of comments before mine above were along the lines of “marriage couldn’t be about procreation because Y” or “no, marriage is really about Y” – either picking holes in her definition, or saying that a different definition is better.

It all seems a bit silly. If she has an anti-equality agenda then that’s the problem, not the definition of “marriage” in her own internal dictionary

Ack. ARE assuming, not is assuming

The meaning of equality has to be understood correctly not as individuals view it.

If FG are able to commit to changing the law on an issue like stag hunting (they are going to legalise it), then why not tackle this issue?

The fact is FG have no intention to tackle this issue. They are a socially conservative party and not one progressive cause will be advanced under their Government from what I can make out.

Ireland really needs a liberal party that isn’t too left-wing economics-wise.

agreed 100% that we need such a party. Funnily enough the Greens, albeit not indefinitely and not necessarily by choice, actually fit that definition very accurately in this election.

The gay community want civil marriage not a church wedding

Firstly, there are christian priests that will perform gay marriages, I believe the Anglicans, the UU and others will.
Secondly, there are non-christian priests that will do it.
Thirdly, marriage is both a secular and a religious tradition.