Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious · 24-03-2015 4:30pm

And now for something completely different.... http://eile.ie/2015/03/24/church-group-against-conscience-clause-for-businesses-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage

conorh91 · 24-03-2015 6:39pm

The authors of that article might go to the trouble of conducting some basic research, next time.

Diarmuid Martin is not calling for a conscience clause.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/diarmuid-martin-not-calling-for-conscience-clause-in-vote-1.2150102

You might also note his comments at the end of that article.

The archbishop also called for the debate “to be carried on respectfully without the use of intemperate language”.

He said he felt “obliged to say that I have received in recent times correspondence from people who support a ‘No’ vote in the referendum in which the language used is not just intemperate but obnoxious, insulting and unChristian in regard to gay and lesbian people.

“If people use such language to support a position they feel is Christian, then all I can say is that they have forgotten something essential about the Christian message.”

There is an ongoing attempt to splash black and white paint over a debate usually festooned in rainbows. It is dishonest and slightly offensive when it misleads the public.

PopePalpatine · 26-03-2015 5:57pm

Jim Walsh has thrown his toys out of the FF pram:
https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/581127148590751744

aloyisious · 27-03-2015 10:30pm

I see the Seand has passed the bill and rejected RM's amendments. I thought JW was going to propose some as well.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 12:07am

You know, if I faced bigotry every day I'd find it hard to not be depressed.

bb1234567 · 28-03-2015 12:09am

xrp wrote: »

<snip>

No off spring..? In America I think I heard lesbian women have almost as many children as the average straight woman

xrp · 28-03-2015 6:19am

bb1234567 wrote: »

No off spring..? In America I think I heard lesbian women have almost as many children as the average straight woman

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

jimdublin15 · 28-03-2015 8:35am

xrp wrote: »

<snip>

To be honest I can only imagine/speculate that the cause of the higher depression rates suffered by some members of the LGBT community may not due to homosexuality itself but perhaps more related to the group having to face undue judgment, stigma, bulling and harassment from other members of society. Or at least the feeling of such. As for the lifestyle, again not sure if homosexuality causes a lifestyle, but I can imagine that if I was part of a group that felt they had to "hide" from the rest of society my lifestyle may become somewhat underground from the feeling of necessity not due to choice or sexuality.

No the promoting side I agree with you. Promoting homosexuality is not the best, (Not sure how or who the Irish times has been promoting though) It's equally as bad as promoting any other sexuality such as heterosexuality in my opinion to be honest. Whatever people do or who they do it with is their own business, no real right or wrong as long as it's consenting adults right?

I must however say if I would think the news or media would promote the one sexuality they should promote the others equally just to be fair, so perhaps best just not to promote it at all. (Again just my opinion)
Offspring, I know quite a few gay people with kids conceived in the more "traditional" manner, but I was unaware it's a burden or a problem if people do not have offspring. I know of plenty hetero couples that decide not to have kids.

xrp wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I fully agree with you on feeling sorry for the kids, however I am sorry that we have not managed to create a better society for them that they can grow in, develop and be free to be whatever they are without facing simple equality problems. I think society and we all make up society should be slightly embarrassed that were not more tolerant towards each other and still are struggling to have equality for all members of that society.

xrp wrote: »

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions.

Sure…. What a great idea, wonderful, - So first we identify them and then charge them more for health insurance, great plan.
However but it’s a very slippery slope we then face together, sure easy enough start with Gay’s and Smokers. But then who’s next?

• The Obese ? Followed by the slightly fat. Perhaps a sliding scale would apply.
• The Diabetics ? They get lifelong treatments from the HSE.
• The Elderly ? They are old partly due to a lifestyle choice, or for this group we just have a cutoff point to reduce cost ? Stop all medical treatment at 65/70 and let nature take its course ?
• Wheelchair bond ?
• Binge drinkers ? (Anyone who has ever drunk more than 6 units ever in a single sitting, I mean that's 90% of us :-))

See I’m not sure if making Gay’s identify themselves and then charging them increasing medical bills is a good idea, this will further push that part of society into hiding (darkness) and this will in turn cause even higher health issues (Depression and STI’s) and so the costs to society. No, I think the first step is we need to be more tolerant of people .

henryporter · 28-03-2015 8:57am

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

And maybe some other disincentive for ridiculous ill informed judgemental bigotry?

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 10:40am

henryporter wrote: »

And maybe some other disincentive for ridiculous ill informed judgemental bigotry?

Oh god no, shure that's [shriek]ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY!11!![/shriek]

aloyisious · 28-03-2015 11:16am

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

When will you be posting about the male homosexual couples and their children missing out on mum, or is it just lesbians you have an interest in? You do indicate a strong, though denied, interest in what lesbians get up to in bed.

I'm glad you're up to date on the science of human reproduction that you know it takes three to tango there when it comes to pregnancy and homosexual couples, unless you think there was some other way pregnancy and birth could occur.

Your mention of bad outcomes to bad decisions and mother and baby homes show's just how caring and clued-in you are about the children born to non-straight couples now, let alone the thoughtful care provided by the state and other caring groups/bodies to mums & kids in that era.

Re the mother and baby homes and the sperm donor kids/ associated data on hard disks, there's a difference: involuntary "consent" by pressure V voluntary signed consent with law (not something of the "hidden" practice of the former).

bb1234567 · 28-03-2015 11:55am

xrp wrote: »

You do realise that lesbian couples/triples/whatever-youre-having-yourself require fathers to reproduce?

Will these poor children know who their father is?

And people give out about the nuns "withholding files". Already, there must be 10,000s of sperm donor kids with the associated data locked away on hard disks (for The State to access, not the child or his/her "parents").

Participating in a hybrid family experiment and allowing homosexuals "have" kids (as authorised by The State) in an effort to legitimise and give credence to their sexual habits, makes mother and baby homes look like a cake walk.

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

I don't really care what homosexual persons get up to - we all have free will and we are all answerable for our actions. I would prefer if there was some disincentive (such as higher medical insurance, etc.). I don't see why everyone else has to pay for the bad outcomes of their bad decisions. Smoking (the use of an orifice contrary to its design) comes with a government health warning.

Yeah, they'll just have two loving mothers instead. What could be worse.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 12:33pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Yeah, they'll just have two loving mothers instead. What could be worse.

It's better than being stuck in an orphanage run by fascistic nuns.

conorh91 · 28-03-2015 5:16pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better than being stuck in an orphanage run by fascistic nuns.

The Orders themselves recognized that even their well-run institutions were inadequate for the raising of children, which is why they always maintained touch a tough advocacy in favour of the family, and continue to do so today.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 5:51pm

Oh boy, the Congregation for the Defence of the Faith's Reputation are here.

Tell me, does this seem like "well-run" to you?

conorh91 · 28-03-2015 5:53pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Tell me, does this seem like "well-run" to you?

Did I say every institution was well run?

No. I'd swear some people just have stock responses to these things.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 6:22pm

By any chance did you mean "such a tough advocacy" rather than "touch a tough advocacy"?

You'd think that selling babies for €70-85k a pop in today's money, along with the funding they got from the state, they might be able to bump up the quality of the care rather than sending it to the Holy See's immense coffers.

xrp · 28-03-2015 10:09pm

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

aloyisious · 28-03-2015 10:30pm

conorh91 wrote: »

The Orders themselves recognized that even their well-run institutions were inadequate for the raising of children, which is why they always maintained touch a tough advocacy in favour of the family, and continue to do so today.

That "tough advocacy" sound's like an excuse to explain away the selling of orphaned and abandoned children to foster parents at home and abroad for cash "donations" on an "any family will do" basis. I can only hope the tough advocacy has changed in style from that used by the orders favouring mother and child abuse.

PopePalpatine · 28-03-2015 10:52pm

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

I'm finding it quite hard to believe you have any genuine concern for any women exploited like this, if you're willing to engage in whataboutery to deflect from what the RCC has inflicted upon this country.

conorh91 · 28-03-2015 10:53pm

aloyisious wrote: »

That "tough advocacy" sound's like an excuse to explain away the selling of orphaned and abandoned children to foster parents at home and abroad for cash "donations" on an "any family will do" basis.

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word advocacy.

Their advocacy in support of the family refers to a policy approach that cherishes and supports biological families staying together, where possible.

Religious orders have always emphasised the need for family autonomy; nobody wants to take babies away from the guardianship of their biological parents unless absolutely necessary. Well, almost nobody...

aloyisious · 28-03-2015 10:55pm

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

I agree that that concept you outline above of "helping the mothers" is wrong. Do you believe that the homes are being hetero-phobic when it comes to what you describe above, that they don't also provide the service you describe to heterosexual couples? Have you done anything here in Ireland with the Indian Ambassador to oppose the human production factories you mention above?

I don't know of any gay couples here who could afford €100k for children, or even if there actually are any. I imagine that gay couples here seeking to adapt children will and do use the legal Irish adoption system to give children homes.

I suggest you are referring to high profile personalities within society listed in newspapers, and in a selective way by not including the heterosexual couples listed as well. If you are choosing to do so, then there is a term to describe that: discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

Annasopra · 29-03-2015 8:46am

conorh91 wrote: »

Only if you completely disregard the meaning of the word advocacy.

Their advocacy in support of the family refers to a policy approach that cherishes and supports biological families staying together, where possible.

Religious orders have always emphasised the need for family autonomy; nobody wants to take babies away from the guardianship of their biological parents unless absolutely necessary. Well, almost nobody...

All the forced adoptions in this country and you are claiming the nuns wanted to keep these families together?

Brian Shanahan · 29-03-2015 1:52pm

conorh91 wrote: »

There is an ongoing attempt to splash black and white paint over a debate usually festooned in rainbows. It is dishonest and slightly offensive when it misleads the public.

Have a chat with Lolek's Onanists then. Those of us in favour of equality for all aren't trying to frame the debate as one of "good vs. evil".

xrp wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie. It's the poor kids I feel sorry for. No sympathy whatsoever for the so-called parents.

What are the odds that if I asked you to back up this blatant lie that you'd point to the lying, discredited, distorted and plain immoral Regnerus Study?

Brian Shanahan · 29-03-2015 2:05pm

xrp wrote: »

The mother and baby homes in India (for the lovely gay couples back home) charge about €100k a pop (when you consider the fee, flights, legalities such as passports, etc.). Industrial scale reproduction and the exploitation of poor vulnerable women is only going to get worse.

Tell that to David Quin, chief Onanist at Lolek Ltd. your fellow anti-gay campaigners. He adopted two foreign babies from poor countries for big money, and adopted them young because they were, in his own words "better to mold the way he wanted", i.e. they were the designer babies you just argued so much against.

Sheesh the hypocrisy of homophobes is terrifying isn't it?

conorh91 · 29-03-2015 2:54pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

All the forced adoptions in this country and you are claiming the nuns wanted to keep these families together?

From those nuns' misguided point of view, there was no intact family. By the standards of the time, and through the prism of their own foolish idealism, I'd assume they felt that the children would be better-off with families who could give them every support, than with a stigmatised, impoverished upbringing during an era where women were not capable of supporting a family alone.

I believe the religious orders generally believed they were doing the right thing, even though they were 100% in the wrong by the standards of today. That wrongdoing has been detrimental to the mothers of these adopted children. There is no 'winner' in this. All I'm asking for is a bit of balance.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Those of us in favour of equality for all aren't trying to frame the debate as one of "good vs. evil".

Then why is the Catholic church always portrayed as the arch-nemesis of gay people? The Archbishop of Dublin has intervened to speak-out against homophobia in the debate, and yet his words are misreported as offering support for a conscience clause--something he *expressly* refused to support.

There is an element on both sides trying to fight this debate in monochrome.

There is deliberately misleading information being advanced on both sides.

marienbad · 29-03-2015 3:21pm

conorh91 wrote: »

From those nuns' misguided point of view, there was no intact family. By the standards of the time, and through the prism of their own foolish idealism, I'd assume they felt that the children would be better-off with families who could give them every support, than with a stigmatised, impoverished upbringing during an era where women were not capable of supporting a family alone.

I believe the religious orders generally believed they were doing the right thing, even though they were 100% in the wrong by the standards of today. That wrongdoing has been detrimental to the mothers of these adopted children. There is no 'winner' in this. All I'm asking for is a bit of balance.

Then why is the Catholic church always portrayed as the arch-nemesis of gay people? The Archbishop of Dublin has intervened to speak-out against homophobia in the debate, and yet his words are misreported as offering support for a conscience clause--something he *expressly* refused to support.

There is an element on both sides trying to fight this debate in monochrome.

There is deliberately misleading information being advanced on both sides.

And did the religious orders believe they were doing right when they refused to give babies to Protestant Irish homes ? Better let them rot in the cruellest circumstances ,risk malnutrition or abuse rather the prods get their hands on them.

conorh91 · 29-03-2015 3:28pm

marienbad wrote: »

And did the religious orders believe they were doing right when they refused to give babies to Protestant Irish homes ?

I'm not aware of this actually being an issue, but of course agencies and biological parents are entitled to proceed in a way that reflects their own ethos. This would apply to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or humanist adoption agencies and parents equally, even in the present day.

If any hypothetical Jewish agency were forced to adopt its children into Catholic homes there would (rightly) be uproar.

marienbad · 29-03-2015 4:06pm

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not aware of this actually being an issue, but of course agencies and biological parents are entitled to proceed in a way that reflects their own ethos. This would apply to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or humanist adoption agencies and parents equally, even in the present day.

If any hypothetical Jewish agency were forced to adopt its children into Catholic homes there would (rightly) be uproar.

Ah yeah ,the spread the blame excuse , better let the kids fall in to the hands of child abusers than prods .

conorh91 · 29-03-2015 4:21pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ah yeah ,the spread the blame excuse , better let the kids fall in to the hands of child abusers than prods .

wtf

Why are you calling them 'prods'? All agencies, and all parents regardless of creed, have the right to prefer an ethos which accords with their own ethos, where possible.

Full rights for the LGBT community.

Comments