What regressive attitude?

David you’re worse on desiring an opinion from this ecclesiastical leviathan of hypocrisy, hurt and hatefulness :)

Keith, I agree with your point, but I kind of want to hear Paddy’s response to David’s questions. His last few have had me in stitches!

Keith, I was trying to expose the great weakness in the opinions of devoted Catholics, the logic underlying them.
I’m gay and I’ve had to put up with an incredible amount of misery because of these people, so I’d like to hear them explain themselves so everyone can see the low caliber of such people.

I’d like to see the answer, but in reality I reckon if you get a response it’s a lot more likely to be a fresh catch of over EU quota red herrings..
Fallacious nonsense is all you ever seem to get from fundies..

@ David Jordan
Hi David, never saw your post as I was busy trying to keep up with another thread above and you had not specifically addressed me.
All of your questions have been addressed before. I won’t be drawn into the marriage debate at this time, as I am currently more concerned about the right to life.
1) marriage as a social Institution has been supported immemorial by the state as the spring from which flows the next generation. The male female complementary has always been essential to this view of marriage.
Same sex marriage, reduces marriage to just a relationship between two, devoid of the possibility of children, lowering the aim of marriage to a one on one emotional tie. The state/society should no longer have an interest in marriage as its future is no longer dependant on marriage. My marriage, like all other marriages, are redefined, and excluding one of the greatest motivations my wife and I had when we married, we wanted to have children together. I loved my parents, and wished to continue our history, beliefs and values into the future.

2) all mothers wish to take care of their own children. Children deserve a mother and a father. This ideal is already greatly abused in society. The safest place for children is with their own biological parents.
3)yes I agree catholic schools should be allowed to promote their own ethos. I do not agree that any school, catholic or otherwise, should allow homophobic bullying. In case there is any misunderstanding, homophobic bullying is bullying a person because they are gay. Disagreeing with someone’s point of view is not homophobic bullying.
Before the maelstrom breaks forth, I don’t want to engage here. You asked and I’m just being polite.

So infertile couples have already cheapened the purpose of your marriage Paddy. And all those who chose not to have children..
I’m afraid that ship has sailed..

Frankly Paddy, your view of marriage, which reduces marriage to a breeding contract, spits on infertile couples and removes the necessity of love in a marriage, degrades marriage more then marriage equality ever could, you might not want the state involved in marriage but civil marriage is seperate from religious marriage and carries with it certain rights, adoption of children in the event of breivement, right to act as next of kin etc, so the state has a roll to play in it still.
The Church has vetoed campaigns to fight homophobic bullying and no we are not talking about disagreeing with people’s point of view, we are talking about the physical and emotional abuse of children because they are gay, which has a blind eye to it because of fears over issues of “ethos”, its great to say you’re against homophobic bullying but your Church’s actions speak louder then words.
And you avoided my question about adoption, yes in an ideal world, children should be rased by their biological parents but as your pope says, the world isn’t ideal so I’ll ask again, if a pregnant woman was considering an abortion wouldn’t she be less likely to go though with it if she knew a loving, devoted, caring gay couple where willing to adopt her child?

And if you didn’t want to engage, then you shouldn’t have commented in the first place, it is the same as the kid who picks up his ball and goes home because he’s losing.

@ David Jordan
Well David marriage is certainly not a breeding contract, and I would say I have as good if not a better understanding of being in love as most. I have been in love with the same woman for 37 years, and its as fervent today, if not more so, than it was when I married her.
But today people seek love advice from pornography, and marriage advice from durex. Fidelity has something to do with the quality of sound. Your question is nonsense. No woman will avoid an abortion at the taught of a potential gay couple waiting for her child, as opposed to a heterosexual couple.

Paddy, I’ve been with my partner for 17 years and in a CP for almost two but in your world view that relationship is essentially worthless?

I am astounded that you can speak for every woman in the world. Well done.

Which people seek love advice from pornography or marriage advice from durex? What on earth are you talking about?
For a start porn is about sex and sex only, nothing to do with love – just the primal urge of sex for its own sake.
Durex are a manufacturer of contraception. They have nothing to do with marriage, they’re a business primarily concerned with reducing STIs and unwanted conception..

Would a woman mind a capable, loving couple who happened to be of the same sex raising her child? Not unless she was a bigot..

Congrats on your happy union then, and contray to the common belief of many Catholics, LGBT people are as capable of fidelity as straight people, though I’ll forgive you that one, few people of your persuasion seem to realize that the LGBT community has moved beyond 1970s Castro Street.
This is coming from a 21 year old gay virgin who wants the first time he was sex to have meaning, the kind of gay person people like you would rather didn’t exist because they make your tired stereotypes look just that, tired.
And quite a few women chose to give their children up for adoption rather then have an abortion, so it it stands to reason that an increased pool of adopters, gay and straight, would lead to less abortions.
You really should be careful who’s views you call nonsense, some may call your own views nonsense with a lot more justification then trying to avoid a difficult question.

Mohammed. Please, provide evidence of these claims or take your homophobic propaganda and buzz off.

Did you bother to look it up ?

Bullying is the targeted systematic and sustained undermining of someone’s self worth.

How does it affect a child who is gay to be subjected to negative dogma about homosexuality from another child/children, or influential and respected adults (teachers, priests etc.)?
Does it undermine their self image/ self worth/ self confidence?
Does it affect them personally and not others (targeted)?
Is it a once-off or sustained?

Depending on how the ethos is delivered, it could be abusive.

@ Jim Redmond
Where did I say I’m talking for every woman in the world.
If you have had 17 years, congrats I’m sure. I must admit I don’t support or agree with such relationships, however I wish you well. May I ask has your relationship been exclusive for the seventeen years. The longevity and fidelity in LGBT relationships is often questioned. In case you ask the same question, yes, only made love to one woman ever.

Paddy, you complain about people tarring the whole Catholic priesthood with the same brush, yet you say that the majority of Gay men are not faithful to their boyfriend/ partner/ husband.
Back to the old Castro Street stereotypes eh?
I should remind you that straight people are not the model of fidelity either.

@ David Jordan
Never mentioned tarring anyone today. Never said the majority of gay men are not faithful. And yes I agree with you that many straight people are unfaithful.

“The longevity and fidelity in LGBT relationships is often questioned.” Seems like taring to me, and it was the first thing you brought up to try to degrade the man’s point, because he has something very troubling to the Roman Church, a relationship that is as meaningful as any Catholic marriage and that differs from it only in legal protection and rights, its a PR nightmare for Rome.

@ David Jordan
Well I disagree. I do not wish to have a go at any particular group. I have never corresponded with a gay man before who had a 17 year old relationship. I therefore took the opportunity to ask him about fidelity, as it has been said, in gay literature, that the strongest gay relationships have an understanding that one night stands do not breech their relationship. And if a gay man puts up their 17 years as a model, I’d like to know by what standards the fidelity is measured? I would be just as questioning of a mixed gender couple. No insult intended.

Is the longevity and monogamy of homosexual partnerships ever questioned by those who are not actively seeking to demean them?

As for the “only made love to one woman ever”, congratulations to you – it worked out for you. Doesn’t work out that way for all – no matter what their orientation. Again, try to look outside yourself at other people sometimes Paddy. Your assumption that what works for you is the same for everyone is incredibly naïve.

I have near once heard that one night stand non-sense until you spouted it, and I think I know my own people better then a Catholic Comment speaker would. We measure fidelity the same way you people do and to suggest otherwise is insulting.

“No insult intended” my eye, but what do you expect from a group like Catholic Comment, people like them always have problems with following the eight commandment.

@ Shanti Om
Yes shanti, longevity, and fidelity, are considered essential to marriage, again as they are characteristics suitable for the neutering of children. The only reason I gave personal details was I assure you not to gloat, but I was asking a personal question, and I taught it appropriate not to ask a question I would not answer myself. If I was not willing to say, I’m sure you would have corrected me.

You can’t compair an unmarried couple who are not allowed marry to a married couple, generally a marriage would last longer then a dating relationship.
I’d I’ve seen the survey which claimed only 2% of the population was gay, it has serious flaws in its methodology, the generally accepted figure is between 6% and 12% and most note that the number is difficult to estimate due to the number of people would would be reluctant to call themselves gay and the number of closeted gays.
But regardless, a group’s protections and rights under the law should be not be lessen because of the small size of that group, for example, the Jewish community make up less then 1% of the Irish population, but do their families deserve any less protection under the law? Of course not.

@ Mohammed Yaya
Hi Mohammed, thanks for the reference. It is quite old but the recent surveys continue to support your position. Interestingly the aids epedemic caused huge changes among the gay community, but in recent years this community appears to be going backward, and are now beginning to engage in risky practices again. What I find encouraging is that many gay people are not in favour of redefining marriage.

Paddy.
We all know that longevity and fidelity are kinda the point of making the commitment to one another in marriage. What I asked was whether people who were not seeking to demean this union between two people of the same sex would bother questioning the presumed longevity or fidelity of said relationship.

Do we question heterosexual marriage – with an almost 50% failure rate in the same way? Perhaps you do, but you seem quite happy passing judgement upon others without attempting to use empathy in your consideration. Most people I know merely wish the couple well and trust them to make their own decisions, after all – you cannot live someone else’s life for them, you can merely live your own.

And for the record I don’t think neutering the children is the best idea ;)

Some gay people take part in risky practices, some gay people (a tiny minority) do not want gay marriage, the majority do.
You talk about redefining marriage, yet this has been done countless times before, unless you’re saying that the Roman Church still views it as a transfare of ownership of a women from her father to her mother, and your greatest allies in the states against marriage equality, the Church of Latter Day Saints, they made two massive changes to their idea of marriage, first introducing polygamy and then returning to monogamy again.
The thing about marriage equality is, when you look at the supporters of it, the most opposed are the people who were on top, in the US 50% of white Americans support marriage equality, while the people who were most oppressed and exploited are the greatest supporters, Latino Americans 60% in support, Black Americans, without whom’s civil rights campaign, the LGBT rights movement would not have got going, 59% in support, the Jewish Americans, a people who are possible the only people to have it a history as plagued by discrimination and undeserved hatred as the gay community, 81%.
Now that tells you something about those who oppose marriage equality, they’re usually the ones to whom discrimination is a unknown misfortune.

David I agree with your points. I just have to disagree where you say most African-Americans and Latino Americans support gay marriage, they are the most homophobic groups in America along with Muslims; but they do vote Democratic overwhelmingly because the Republican Party has alienated them. The Republicans have been discussing since losing the election on getting the African/Latino vote as they are traditionally/mostly socially conservative. I live in NC where an amendment was passed banning domestic partnership benefits/civil unions/health coverage (for gay couples) only 25% of African-Americans (this number increased to 25% because of Obama’s support for Gay marriage some speculate) in my state voted against the amendment the rest supported the amendment. But you are correct on American Jews being overwhelmingly supportive of gay marriage, most Jews in general are liberal on social and economic issues. White Americans are the biggest supporters of gay marriage. Most of the homophobic White Christian preachers you hear about come from middle/rural America which doesn’t count for the bulk of White Americans at all; as those areas are not densely populated.

Erin, I based those numbers on the following;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/05/23/National-Politics/Polling/question_4923.xml?uuid=DsJGrKSMEeGoEekBtKbiMQ#
http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/LGBTAS_HispanicPerspective.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html?hpid=z3
http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Jewish-Values-Report.pdf

Also 25% voting of African Americans against that messure in North Carolina would not be out of line with the states general support of marriage equality, I should point out that in pure numbers rather then percentage yes white people make up the majority in support of marriage quality but they also makeup the majority of opposition as well as they make up the majority of the US population in general.

Erin, only 25% of Black people being in favour of same-sex in North Carolina would not be out of line with the general level of support for marriage equality in the state, while it is true that in pure numbers that white people make up the bulk of support for marriage equality but also the bulk of opposition to it as they make up the majority of the population.
NC is equally unrepresenative of the rest of the US.

@ Shanti Om
Shanti, I am not seeking to demean the union between gay couples, but I am saying marriage is unique, and supported by the state for a reason, and gay relationships do not suit or match that reason.
With marriage for gay persons comes the right to adopt, and adoption should only be allowed where longevity and fidelity are the probable expectation, rather than the exception.
No we cannot live someone else’s life, nor should we accept an anything goes approach in society, that we call anarchy.
As you detected, and in accordance with my catholic inspired beliefs, I am not in favour of neutering children, but nurturing them would be nice ;)

Paddy you are making baseless assumptions about fidelity and longevity. Now don’t go quoting statistics at me because we can all play that game. Based on your ideas you should also deny heterosexuals the right to marry because chances are one of them will have an affair at some point. This whole notion that gay people are promiscuous is so silly. It implies that straight people are not which, as we all know, is absolutely untrue. Some straight people – thankfully most of the ones I know – are capable of fidelity, some are not.

By the way, I didn’t answer your earlier question about whether or not my relationship is monogamous because quite frankly it sickens me that this is the first question that comes into your head when faced with the fact that many, many gay people have long term relationships. However, for the sake of clarity, although its none of your or anyone else’s business, yes is the answer.

By the way, I hope you never have gay grand/children. Your church makes for a miserable, lonely childhood for kids struggling with their sexuality.

Paddy you aren’t seeking to demean same sex relationships but you assume both partners will be sleeping around and I won’t last anyway?

Jim have you ever heard of N.e Whitehead p.h.d. If not might I suggest you look him up some very interesting studies on both mental and physical complications associated with leading a homosexual lifestyle.

Mohammad can you explain to me what a homosexual lifestyle is? I’m assuming its part of the gay agenda?

Hey Paddy..
If its all about presumed longevity then I guess no one should be allowed adopt. We will just leave all those unwanted children in orphanages for their entire lives, sure that’s what’s happening all over the world..

No one has a window into the future, and there’s nothing that makes a heterosexual couple more stable than a homosexual couple besides the individual members of that couple and their own INDIVIDUAL personal commitment ability.

Think of it like this – does a mans preference of female appearance (ie bust / legs / blondes / brunettes etc) indicate whether or not he is capable of fidelity or longevity? If not – then why would the fact he prefers men? Besides your hairbrained assumptions pushed by the homophobic equivalent of a Neo nazi telling you about Jews?

@ Jim Redmond
Jim I regret any offence. I am glad you have succeeded in the exclusive relationship, as I have read literature from gay groups which see non exclusivity as a strength in keeping gay relationships together. So, such dynamics in gay relationships do make them fundamentally different to married relationships.
It is true that marriage is also under attack by unfaithfulness in male/female situations, but not to the same extent as in gay relationships. I must say that the vast majority of couples I know have been faithful to their spouses.
I would also hope none of my children of grandchildren will have to cope with being gay. If they do you can be sure I will support and love them, but I will not encourage marriage, or other intimate relationships to them. Being gay is a very difficult personal journey, and societal journey, for anyone. Many here like to have a go at the church and blame it for the difficulties gay people experience, but the church is patient and forgiving, and always willing to help gays or anyone with difficulties. As with the abuse situation, individuals are certainly capable of cruelty, but that has nothing to do with church teaching, and is fundamentally against charity. But the church makes clear to all that our behaviour in this life, affects our situation in the next, and that is a concern of the church. Many today of course choose to ignore that consideration, and that is their free choice.

@ Shanti Om
Happy CHRISTmas Shanti. No it’s not all about longevity, but that is one of the relationship differences. Other issues include the complementarity, the balance, the availability of the strengths within each gender to children, gay people have many additional health issues, their life expectancy is greatly reduced, etc. etc.

@Paddy, re your apology to Jim. An honest researcher would take their own prejudices and presuppositions into account when researching a subject. You are given to think of gay relationships as fundamentally immoral and when you read some literature suggesting your prejudice is correct you are very quick to scream QED. Given that your bias is clear to see, you should take measures to seek balance, perhaps set the bar of proof higher for points that reinforce your own prejudice, or actively seek out counter-arguments to debunk bias-reinforcing readings. “I read a book once about a bunch of gays who went out shagging anything that moved, and I accepted it as true for all or most gay people of all ages” is not a very convincing point, especially if you were to look it in the context of the rest of your points. From my own personal and unscientific experience, most people I have known have gone through a period of experimentation about the late teens and early twenties regardless of sexuality. Now that we’re all older, most have settled, also regardless of sexuality.

Dunno where my reply from earlier went..
Which “literature from gay groups” have you been reading that led you to this conclusion?
Are we talking magazines? Lets look at men’s magazines – is Loaded or Nuts indicative of the average male?
Is Cosmo, or More! indicative of women?
Many men and women respectively regard these magazines as tripe.. The “literature” doesn’t necessarily translate to the entire demographic audience..

With regards the life expectancy argument – seriously? So obese people, people who drink, people who eat red meat, people who work in emergency services and the Gardaí – people who work in high stress jobs.. All of them should be excluded too, their life expectancies are lower.. And their life expectancies are actually lower, it’s not just from someone setting out to prove it to bolster their dodgy premise.. I believe that’s called a biased sample.

And as for CHRISTmas, you do realise that even the pope admits they chose this time of year for celebrating Jesus birth because it coincided with the pagan celebrations at this time of year, there’s no Christmas trees in Bethlehem – which is the Hebrew name for the constellation VIRGO, from between the “legs” of which the SUN rises on December 25th after 3 days at its lowest point in the sky (the solstice). Y’know – the time of year that Newgrange lights up, from BEFORE St Patrick got here..

Ok Mohammad against my better judgement I did a quick search for n e whitehead. One very short paper published by NARTH “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.” So essentially they are part of the ex-gay movement. See what the APA has to say about that sick, damaging lie here: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

Besides that Mohammad, Whitehead mentions that many young gay people suffer from suicidal ideation. Is that a surprise when they are being brought up in the face of religious bigotry?

Well if the only purpose you can see to marriage is having babies then I guess there isn’t much love there..

So I take it you have been in a marriage with someone of the same gender as yourself? For how else can you determine that a marriage between two people of the same gender can have no meaning or purpose?

Says you, however that tiny expression from what is now a minority can never make it so. Society knows better now than pay to much mind to what are essentially indiscriminate farts in the wind.

It does have meaning for gay people. I’d love to know why anyone feels in any way threatened about gay marriage. I mean, I’ve heard some reasons given but they never have any basis.

The funniest one I’ve heard is that marriage is for creating families – I don’t get how gay marriage threatens that.

Yes. If marriage is all about having babies then I guess infertile couples and those who do not wish to have kids shouldn’t be allowed marry either. And as we all know, that would be extreme discrimination, and would be rightfully be opposed.
So why is it used as an argument against same sex marriage?
And really – for a lesbian couple to have kids all they need is a sperm donor, so this not being able to procreate argument, seems to discriminate against male homosexuals specifically..

With your first name it’s usually one man and several women mate ;)

Apparently yes, he was a paedophile

I hope Paddy is serious. Otherwise I’ll need to get a new Zero to John Watters Troll Scale, because this one is about to keel over.

*seeing

Do you need any more straw for that argument?

What?

@ Ciaran Dillon
Ciaran, again why?, because of their stubbornness. Despite all of the other warnings, they would not let the chosen people free. It is worth noting that god gives life and he alone has the authority to take it away.
Both hell and heaven await us, just how stubborn are we going to be?

@Paddy, did God give Dan White the authority to take Harvey Milk’s life? He was just one of the many victim of the Roman Church’s culture of death and hatred of gay people who are unwilling to live a lie.

@Mohammed, HIV is a parasite more common in Africans then Europeans, does that make them any worse then Europeans, of course not, its a result of the fact that Africans were exploited by others (and still are by Rome and the Bible Belt) and didn’t have the benefit of education about the disease and mesures to control the spread of the disease until very recently, (though Rome’s continued opposition to condoms doesn’t help either).

Mohammed, well done… not only have you singled out gay men (and thus failing in arguing against same-sex marriage for women) but you have also chosen 2 parasites which are not only not exclusive to gay men but more to ano-oral sex. One of those you listed has been subject to study specifically wrt gay men and found that the types transmitted were non-pathogen types.
The other appears to have no study which specifically found gay men to be of higher risk.

Regardless, in either situation education on the issues would be more beneficial than persecution. Just as it is better to educate heterosexual teens around being sexually responsible.

Again, not a point that doesn’t apply elsewhere.

You brought up two parasites, I brought up another one to show that the results of previous neglect by others should not be justification for future abuse by others.

From your name, its clear that you are an immigrant or of immigrant extraction, so I’ll ask you if you are aware that some people have made simular acussations about immigrants as a justification for closing our boarders to those from outside the EU?

Not saying I agree with them but people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, you can’t complain about racism while at the same time, discriminating against gay people.

Did I complain about racism? In Ireland a long time and have suffered some racism from young people but It’s not a problem for me, but a problem for them.

@Mohammed

I’m beginning to feel invisible – or maybe it’s just the righteousness of the homophobic faithful!?

You’re presenting nothing Mohammed. Just as Paddy did earlier – avoiding questions, presenting fallacies and generally just appearing as if your intellect can only stretch to stirring the pot.

I won’t assume that but I do hope that you can skip the unhelpful statements of ideology and kick in with the intellect or expect little other than to just throw out more fallacies.

Well Mohammed, on any privious tread were people suggested that your anti-gay views come from being rased in a homophobic culture, you accus them of racism, by the way, do you know why you suffer less racism nowadays? Because non-ethnic Irish did the exact same thing gay people are doing now and fought for their rights.
If you think gay people deserve less rights because you dislike them, what’s to stop someone else to demand that you have less rights because they don’t like your people?
Peoples inalienable rights are contingent on the equal inalienablity of the rights of others.

@ David Jordan
Where does the AstroTurf PR group term come from? I’m a catholic and I’m willing to say so publicly, even where that’s unpopular. But I’m not in the business of cooking figures to make murder seem charitable like the Guttmacht Institue.

Your train to handle the media and to appear like a grass roots movement when you do so by Catholic Comment, so hence astroturf PR group, and yes you do manipulate facts to make them serve the Roman agenda when it suits you and you do so to earn yourself a place in heaven, regardless of you you hurt so your not really that different to the people at Guttmacht.
How can you claim the moral high group on one issue while at the same time creating the culture of hatred that leads to the abuse, oppression and murder of gay people?
Do you ever think that the Roman Church’s teachings may in some manner contribute to the violence that gay people are often subject to?

No.. You’re just in the business of redefining medical terms to suit your agenda and dismissing evidence..

Who are you to decide on that?

Heard interview on radio. Hedging his/his churches stance. His followers need clear guidance

Paddy, I’m just glad you don’t get to make these ‘moral’ decisions for others. You display the worst kind of arrogant nonsense which is typical of the Catholic church but I’m sure you know by now that you’re swimming against the tide. Your ramblings mean absolute nothing.

That’s true Paddy, the roman catholic church is very clear on what and whom it opposes and wishes to oppress.

I hear you Paddy, In a similar way I’m delighted with the clarity not listening to the church brings me on the matter!

Oh Paddy! You poor misguided fool!

Clarity in the catholic church? No, they abuse children. My version of ‘simplicity’ is that I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that abusing kids in any way is wrong. With such a warped sense of morality in that issue, how you can go about spouting your regurgitated doctrine and medieval beliefs, and even state your affiliation with that organisation is both unbelievable and horrifying. Get a grip man, it’s 2012!

@ Daniel Dudek Corrigan
I’m just a faithful member. Does your view have greater gravitas?
@ Brian
Do you not think it is arrogant to call someone else arrogant?

@Paddy – I was being kind by calling you arrogant

@ Conor Foley
I agree with you Conor, even though I think our understandings vary. The church stands against, opposes, the culture of death. You may have assumed something else.
@ Pedro
Enjoy the dark.
@ Gareth Walker-Ayers
Interestingly it took six comments before you pulled out the old reliable. Do you really believe human nature is significantly different in 2012 than it was in 1012, or it will be in 3012.

“Thank God for the clarity we enjoy in the Catholic Church” Yes Paddy your holy father was very clear when he said what he did in the link below.I also find the lack of coverage of the story very disturbing indeed!!! An evil institution no doubt about it.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html

@ Ru Ni Digs
The Belfast Telegraph, a great supporter of catholic theology for years, never one to selectively quote.
You may consider it an “evil” institution, but many of us trust Christs promise to be with us to the end of time. I do, you don’t.

Never justified? Isn’t such ignorance true bliss! Way to show the strength of your faith and compassion with such sweeping statements that condone scenarios in which both mother and fetus die needlessly. It’s ok though because by the same logic the murder of countless women during witch trials is justified because the innocent would have died a good Christian death anyway. Slow clap for you

@Paddy, well the way the church is in decline at the moment, your lot won’t be around to facilitate the kind of things members of the clergy enjoy in this day and age. As far as I’m concerned, the supporters of child molesters are a hairs breadth from being as bad as them.

I do believe human nature is different. We are a more tolerant and socially accepting people because of our development through the past 1,000 years, and if you require proof just look at any civil rights movement of the past 200 years.

Your views are outdated, your support of the church is misguided, and you dodge every point made to you where you can because you do not have an answer other than “because god says so”. People who think like you will be looked back upon in the future as those who stood in the way of progress in our society, and hopefully soon, there won’t be any more of you.

A faithful member of an organisation that facilitated and covered up pedophilia..
You know, if it were any other organisation, you could be tried as an accomplice. For example – if you were suspected of being a member of al Qaeda you would be branded a terrorist – whether you had ever directly had a hand in terrorist activities or not.

If you wish to follow Jesus Paddy, then by all means follow Jesus. He said his father was not to be found in temples, and spoke of the special place in hell for the hypocrites, so why do you insist upon identifying with them? By standing with the Catholics you are identifying yourself as someone who supports their behaviour – and excuses it by *not* standing for what is right and turning your back upon the modern day equivalent of the temple dwellers Jesus cast out.

Daniel, he is a Catholic. Once upon a time the Catholic church decided what was good and proper for everyone on this island, now they simply get to decide for themselves.

Just another control freak trying and subsequently failing to comprehend that it’s over.

“You may consider it an “evil” institution, but many of us trust Christs promise to be with us to the end of time. I do, you don’t.”

Yes Christ was right there alright,when his servants were raping and destroying the lives of little children all over the world under the cover of his name.Or when his church was trying to cover up such atrocities,kinda like the way you are trying to do here too.Which makes you no better than the rest of mentally weak,arrogant, ignorant,self serving.blind sheep that makes up this despicable institution of control,sexism and hate.

@ Alan Quinn
Yes Alan never justified. But in my ignorance let me again say what I mean by abortion, it is the deliberate targeting of the baby in the womb, with the intention of taking its life. It does not include removing the baby in cases such as cancer treatment, fallopian pregnancies etc.
Thank goodness my compassion and faith will be judged by another, and even though I may be in want in these areas, I’m sure hell be more merciful than you.
With a little more research you may find out it wasn’t Catholics who did the witch burning.
Thanks for the slow clap, hope the arthritis heals up!

Heard his interview I have to disagree he said he was against same sex marriage and free abortion I felt he couldn’t have been clearer a good interview in my view

Anti Catholic intellectual inbreeding has produced sterile minds in some. Groups who feed off their own propaganda are known as cults. Commentators should do some independent research and cop on that they are just being used.

@Gareth, what about the majority of people out there will marry in a church, send their kids to be baptised, make communion and be confirmed and intend on having a funeral there when the time comes? Don’t be stupid- not a right thinking person on the planet supports anyone who’d abuse a child. Stay away from churches if you wish but don’t insult people who don’t.

May I ask you, as a staunch pro life advocate, what do you do to ensure the reduction of abortions besides campaign to have it remain illegal?

Evidence shows that free contraception, education and access to safe and legal abortion actively reduces the number of abortions carried out.
Effective social programmes to support mothers who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy to keep the child, and not live in poverty would help more women feel that there were better options than abortion, also help to keep abortion levels low.

Pro life organisations and the Catholic Church tend to oppose these approaches – and instead push for less education, supports, contraception and wish to keep abortion illegal and unsafe, thus endangering lives and forcing more women and children into poverty..

Also, as most pregnancies are aborted naturally – what work do pro life organisations do to prevent miscarriages or fatal foetal abnormalities? There are women who find this aspect of pregnancy heartbreaking – and it affects the unborn that you claim to be representing. What research is being done into preventing this needless waste of life which far exceeds the worldwide figures for abortion?

Face it.. It’s the last bastion of a patriarchy seeking to control women dressed up as pseudo concern for the unborn..

I think it’s funny how people say clergy abuse children. People outside of the church have abused children too. If we are to tar people outside the church in the same way we do the clergy then most of your friends and family must be child abusers.

Come back to bed Paddy. I’ve spread on yer favourite jelly for you princess ;)

@Alan If your kids (if you have any) went to a local sports center every week for football or some other activity, and it was discovered that within that chain of sports centers there had been a huge coverup of sexual attacks on children by coaches in collusion with each other, a coverup leading almost all the way to the top people running that organisation, would you let your kids go there any more? I personally would never set foot in that place again!

And for clarity, I do not want to get married in a church, have a religious ceremony when I die, or have my kids having anything whatsoever to do with the catholic church. It’s people like yourself who are willing to turn a blind eye because of tradition you’ve been brought up with and keep going to church and prolonging its relevence and survival in a world that would be better off without it.

@Paddy, many of the faithful enjoy playing semantics on such subjects. Defining abortion as not including ectopic pregnancy and anything else you choose to not to include is quite simply disingenuous. Not only that but it also stands against the Monty Python parodied “every little sperm is sacred” type attitude. You claim the catholic church to be consistent but then add your own caveats to what you believe abortion to be?
Did you agree with the pope when he denounced the use of condoms in Africa, which is torn apart by HIV and AIDS?

We see the same paradoxical argument from the catholic church at the other end of life which denies not only believers but non-believers the right to determine their own death in the case of terminal illness.

And in the most striking example of such blinkered religious fervour your own pope recently blessed Rebecca Kadaga, who has vowed to pass Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill calling it a “Christmas gift” to the Ugandan people.

There are many more examples of the church’s actions that confuse the message of “love thy neighbour” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Your attempt to devalue Gareth’s point by essentially saying “that old chestnut?”

Sandra, perhaps you missed the point.
This was an organisation which held a disproportionate amount of influence over society. They were entrusted with children and pregnant girls, as they held themselves up as morally superior. When the truth came out, rather than deal with the behaviour and excommunicate the priests involved, or report this abuse, they made victims sign oaths of secrecy and simply moved the abusers to different parishes.

If another person – say someone’s brother / sister / mother / father is found guilty they are brought to justice and jailed. The community turns against them as much as they have against the abusers within the church, the reason they hold the church accountable is due to their role in protecting these abusers from being brought to justice, as they would a family member who tried to protect an abuser. The reason being that this is the very definition of aiding and abetting a sex offender.

As for the congregation supporting this criminal activity – perhaps they should examine their consciences..

Good god woman (pun intended), please tell me you’re trolling??? No one is denying people outside the church abuse children but they, largely, work in isolation and are certainly not protected, hidden and facilitated by an ancient worldwide organisation that advertises itself as a moral compass!!! So slight difference???

How great to have clarity given to you from on high without necessitating any thought, research or debate. Catholicism is a dictatorial cult but most of us aren’t as passive in receiving diktats anymore, at least the COI debate these issues rather than simply and unquestioningly accepting as absolute truth the mutterings of an old man in a dress. As regards marriage, for your amusement and information:

http://www.upworthy.com/youre-against-gay-marriage-because-of-your-religion-no-youre-not?rc=i

@ Gareth Walker-Ayers
Thanks for putting a hair breath between me and the child molesters. Contrary to popular belief here, the church is growing significantly all over the world. May have something to do with the fact that much of the world has not yet succumbed to the effects of unrestrained excess, and the folly of believing in the importance of ones own opinions.
Science has developed in all it forms, but that has not changed human nature.
Greed, and selfishness abound. The poor are poorer than ever. We still engage in the slaughter of innocents. We engage in intellectual gymnastics to justify our own selfish interests. Human trafficking is more widespread, and probably effects as many, if not more, than when slavery was widespread. There is much more abuse of children in society, than in the church today. Abuse will never be overcome by a society devoid of moral input.
Sorry to disappoint you but there is no utopia dangling at the end of the enlightenment.

Biblical marriage is…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Yes Gareth, I wouldn’t be happy but I wouldn’t turn my back on sport. No one’s happy with actions of some in the church but I don’t think it should affect people’s opinion of the institution which was unfortunate enough to have attracted some bad people into its ranks in the past. If there are some corrupt gardai do you decide law enforcement is a bad thing?

You can have whatever rules you like in your church Paddy. I don’t care. Fortunately, the law of this land will be decided by the people of this land and their representatives.

Oh, can we have that €500 million now please? I think you’ve had long enough to get it together. We have victims to compensate.

Yes Paddy..
The Catholic Church is growing, in impoverished nations where education is not something everyone is privy to. It is far easier to have unquestioning followers when they are uneducated.
It’s the same with the missionaries of old – destroying indigenous cultures to being them “god”..

Funny, my partners father works in aid. He spends a lot of time in impoverished nations in Africa and Asia. The church? Well, these poor people that my partners father has worked so hard to help set up farms and businesses, are brainwashed into the need to be the one who gives the most to the collection plate (sound familiar?) while the priests live in nice houses and drive fancy cars, the congregation give more than they can afford to attain good favour with their church..

Not to mention the amount of fund misappropriation that goes on in certain charities which are affiliated with the church.. I know of at least one which had its funds stopped for failing to ensure that they went to the people rather than the corrupt governments.

Yeah, all sounds exactly like what they did here.. They’ll be setting up indoctrination institutions, I mean – helping secure education for these impoverished children next..

Paddy, you say the poor are getting poorer, and yet look at the glorious temples in which your religious leaders have resided for centuries. The priceless art, real estate and exemptions from paying the state is only the height of decadence! How can the church claim to help the poor when the Pope sits in his palace in the heart of Rome, in fine garments and admonished in jewels while people starve across the world? How can you follow this man, who sets example by condemning those who would speak against his word, and wielding his power to incite inequalities between different social groups? Whose answer to any and all worldwide problems is prayer (An act that has been scientifically proven to work a grand total of 0 times).

I’ll say it again Paddy, get a grip!

@ Shanti Om
Hi Shanti Om, I see you are still waving the old flag, we understand you hate the church, but please declare your interests. As a point of interest the pedophilia amounts to a very small proportion of the abuse, but you like to hang onto the term as it is more effective as a term of abuse.
I think I’ll get quotations for Jesus and the Father elsewhere. I’m always suspicious when people quote the bible, after all, that’s what satin did when he tempted Christ.

Hope none of your grand kids turn out gay Paddy and careful leaving them alone with certain clergy mate.

Alan, it’s not just about the people who committed these unforgivable acts, but it’s the organisation that covered it up and tried to hide it from the people. Those same people left the offenders in their positions of power, free to commit child abuse again, and it’s that act that reeks of a corrupt and, quite frankly, evil behaviour towards saving their own asses and the ass of the church!

Perhaps if we all shout loud enough against the church, then nobody will notice we are about to regulate the killing of children in this country.
Can anyone show me the scientific proof that the foetus is not human, not alive, not worth protecting?
There is no example of a country where restricted abortion has succeeded. Let us be clear, abortion excused by threat of suicide is free for all abortion. The psychiatrists are lining up to sign the bloody forms.

Declare your own interests Paddy;

http://catholiccomment.ie/speakers/

And yes, only a small number of priests engaged in sexual abuse of children, but far more engaged in the physical, emotional and financial abuse of women and children and more still in the cover up of such, as well as the Roman Church’s continuing oppression of the LGBT community;

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/14/pope-gives-blessing-to-ugandas-anti-gay-parliamentary-speaker-rebecca-kadaga/

While at the same time the Roman Church is bleating about the treatment of their devotees in Egypt and other parts of the middle east, here’s an idea, many those Catholics can still have Catholic tendencies as long as they don’t act on those tendencies, after call that’s the line the Roman Church is feeding us.

Ah Paddy, you finally deigned to respond to me – well, you addressed me, you failed to actually respond to anything I have said to you.

Yes, the number of pedophiles as a percentage of the clergy would not be a large one. But the complicity of covering up abuse is the source of that particular scorn. Surely these men (and women) of superior morality would have concerned themselves with what was right?

Please, tell us – what research is being undertaken to prevent fertilised eggs being flushed out in the menses? To prevent later stage miscarriages? To prevent fatal foetal abnormalities? What about all *those* unborn children’s rights to life?
And what are we doing to reduce the need for abortion ie – free contraception, better education, more supports for unplanned pregnancies, lone parents and families? What’s the catholic church’s position on all of those?

And why identify with an organisation so far from the teachings of the man you call Christ, as to be the very same as the organisations he cast from the temples?

Nice attempt at an ad hominem by the way.. Can’t engage with any of my points, but you can try to attack.. Well done sir, for a man of your apparent years its quite unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to playground debating techniques..

Oh and Paddy, watch out – there’s some people with letters after their names (meaning that they are EDUCATED and QUALIFIED) who may feel that your accusation “the psychiatrists are lining up to sign the forms” as slander..
And as a woman I find it offensive, how dare you decide that any woman who feels suicidal when faced with the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy is lying. You are neither educated not qualified enough to make that call. You admitted yourself above that you view people thinking for themselves to be a bad thing.
It’s no wonder you’re an apologist for such a blatantly corrupt organisation.

Simple it is Paddy and simple you must be for believing their simple views on an extremely complicated issue.

@ Shanti Om
I can’t type as quick as you Shanti, plus I’m busy celebrating the birth of the child God and man, so I have limited time for your fifty distractions, from the killing of the unborn. Let me summarise, the church, despite the dreadful abuse and cover ups by individuals, is now one of the safest institutions for children. And yes more will happen, but that will not divert the church from speaking out in defence of those who have no voice. Lets just address one of your ever repeating fallacies. You always blame god for natural occurrences, including natural deaths, well Shanti in the church we understand that evil entered the world through mankind, and with it death. So ease up on the distractions, stick to the point, were thinking of making the death sentence acceptable in Ireland for those without any guilt.

@ Ciaran Dillon
Yes Ciaran, simplicity is a virtue. We find that us humans like to make complicated the things that don’t suit out way of living. This is simply against the fifth commandment for most Christians. Abortion is simply not the cure for any disease. The only need for complexity in this issue is where people wish to hide the truth.

“By standing with the Catholics you are identifying yourself as someone who supports their behaviour.”
Not at all condescending or judgmental of a huge group of people.
Hmm. Yes. Those Catholics. They are all bad folk. Every one. The behaviour of Catholics is not to be tolerated. Down with that sort of thing.
I’m a pro-choice catholic, in favour of same-sex marriage (and plenty others out there like me, much and all as the Vatican tries to hide it).

@ B Collins
By standing as a catholic, I stand for Christ, and yes I love the church, including their revulsion at all forms of abuse by individuals inside and outside the church.
Sorry to inform you but prochoice means you cannot say the creed without crossing your fingers behind your back, and even that does not work. Who is being delusional.

From your 10 commandments Paddy:

9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Your God’s promise to punish the unborn…

Ah now, you’ve had at least 3 hours to address my points, and you have made a few responses in that time – none of which addressed anything I had put to you, that’s why I noted it when you finally did address me..

Again – evidence shows that in countries where abortion was made legal, the number of abortions carried out decreased. And the amount of women who were dying from illegal abortions plummeted.
Increased education and easier access to contraception also reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies substantially. No one wants a world where every woman has had an abortion – we all want as few to happen as possible, it’s just that the pro choice way actually obtains those results, while the pro life way results in higher levels of unwanted pregnancy, abortion and death – of mothers as well as babies.
I just prefer to deal in evidence over assumption Paddy, that’s all.

But by all means, ignore the evidence. Ignore the facts that stare you in the face, the same way you do when you claim that the church has learnt from its mistakes. How many of the abusers in the catholic church were brought to justice? And to claim that it’s now the safest place for children? If your head was any further into that sand you would be completely submerged and well on your way to the earths core.

@B Collins,
I think Paddy just demonstrated my point.. Like I said to him, if you wish to follow Jesus teachings then by all means follow them, but they aren’t to be found in the Vatican. Following Jesus makes you Christian, following the Pope makes you Catholic.

@ Ciaran Dillon
Not MY 10 commandments, just as much yours, but we all choose what we do with them.
In your example god says the iniquity of the father, not His own whim of fancy, but the fathers own choices, shall effect his children and their children. This is very apt for the discussion at hand, the laws we approve today shall surely effect our children and our grandchildren. They may have the right to be born withdrawn from them by us

@Paddy, I’m assuming that your insistence on sticking with child abuse and abortion is an admittance that you have no defense against the specific recent statements by the pope himself.

Given these statements have been so recent I think they also allow for a serious amount of doubt over your apparent belief that human nature has not benefited from science and it seems you believe that the church does?

First, the very tool you are using has arguably given more to human nature than any other scientific and technological achievement.

Second, Science by its very nature welcomes questioning. It does not try to fill in the unknown by making something up and shoe-horning it into the unknown space. (before you attack the higgs boson or some other theory – they are just that; theories which COULD explain unknown scientific problems. They are never presented as fact, and never produced dogma)

Third – you are professing your beliefs. But then ask for scientific proof? Well you opened the door there…. I’m really tempted to ask you for proof of god’s existence but I won’t – because there simply is none.

I’d far rather talk about issues of abortion and same-sex marriage on a basis of intellect and not ideology. By sticking to ideology (and being inconsistent on it too) it’s far too easy to pretty much ignore the christian right point of view. If you have anything based on intellect though, I’d be interested in hearing it – particularly if you have any science around how your church can in good conscience claim to be pro-life while threatening African nations that they will burn in hell due to the use of a condom.

@ Shanti Om
Shanti I have a life thank God, so addressing the gunshot approach you have to a discussion does not appeal to me. I have no intention of whiting a book answering all of your side quips. The Catholic Church has volumes of Apologetics to answer your questions, so here is what I suggest, pick just one of your gripes and ill try in my armature way to answer you. But try to stick to one issue.

@ Tomy Iona
Tomy, I think one of us is mixed up. I believe science improves our knowledge, but more knowledge does not affect our nature. We are still capable of bullying for instance, just as long ago. We still hate, we’re still envious, rape and abuse of all sorts still fill our prisons. We break all of the commandments with gusto. How are we different.? So again, human knowledge is improved, human nature quite consistent.
On your third point, isn’t it extraordinary that you can ask the question?
Please prove to me scientifically that the foetus is not alive, not human.

Fair enough, I’ll try keep it simple.. Seeing as how you asked so nicely..

You say as a pro life advocate that you wish to protect unborn children.
Here are the FACTS.
• In countries where abortion was introduced the abortion rates DECREASED.
• In countries with free access to contraception, the rates on unwanted pregnancies DECREASED.
• In countries with open, honest, fact based sex and relationship education, unwanted and teenage pregnancies DECREASED.

The pro life lobby have opposed ALL of these approaches.

In countries where abortion is illegal, there are still abortions, in Ireland women travel, in some other countries there is a large problem with illegal abortions which often result in the death of not just the foetus, but the mother too. How exactly is that “pro life”?

If you really wanted to reduce the number of abortions you would support all of the above PROVEN methods of reducing women’s need to access abortion services.

Keep clinging Paddy.

Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give?
give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 9:14 God pro abortion – pro forced abortion at that

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:17 God pro killing boys but keep the girls for your own pleasure

Samaria shall become desolate;
for she hath rebelled against her God:
they shall fall by the sword:
their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Hosea 13:16 No abortions for the health of the mother but abortions for all who piss me off

Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
2 Kings 15:16 Abortions for all who don’t open the gate.

You’ve addressed practically nothing there Paddy.

You may as well just have said in a wise old way “Ah, that’s the mystery that is our creator”.

I actually see little point in even sending this reply – only I suppose I don’t want you to think that I am avoiding the question. I will say though that I am not professing that human life does not start as a foetus. I haven’t tried in any way to go against that so I don’t know why you’re asking that question specifically of me.

On the other hand, You have put your beliefs out for questioning. But have not offered anything as proof.

Something I will say though is that there are many atheists in this world, and many gay people – both of these groups have been described as not fully human – so I guess for me at least, through your belief I deserved to be aborted?

Getting dangerously close to the kind of fuzzy “logic” that is shared with WBC aren’t you?

As a counter to your question though, I think you’d find it much harder to find any evidence which proves that a baby is essentially parasitic to the carrying woman and quite simply cannot survive without intervention even as an infant.

Someone close to me experienced abuse (non-clerical). it was not reported to the authorities. I suspect there are many people who know of someone who experienced this. The cover up was not just the Catholic Church’s doing, although they did their fair share, particularly when it came to the clergy. That said, to speak of abuse, much less to seek recourse after the fact was a societal taboo, to the extreme.

It simply was not acknowledged as a phenomenon, the thought being so disturbing and foreign to people they just refused to accept it. It was absolutely unacceptable to speak of abuse of any kind 30 – 40 yrs ago and the further back, the more repressed this notion was. It seems the more extreme the abuse, the more secretive it became. It is well established that it was a more innocent time. Jimmy Saville, prime example. He was prolific, and had no connection with the CC, yet that has just been uncovered.

That said, it is reprehensible the CC has absconded, legally and financially from any blame to the extent that it has.

You say we are still capable of bullying Paddy, how true, a lot of gay kids get bullied in school and then there are the ones who are so terrified of what would happen to them if they came out so they live a lie until they leave secondary school, and Catholic teaching plays a large part in that, in fact every campaign to fight homophobic bullying in our schools were vetoed by the Roman Church’s representive on their boards of management.
Tell me how are you “fighting the culture of death” while you are telling these children that there is something wrong with them and in fact are willing to bless those intending to do violence to LGBT people?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/14/pope-gives-blessing-to-ugandas-anti-gay-parliamentary-speaker-rebecca-kadaga/

@ Shanti Om
I have heard this argument from you before Shanti. Black is white and white is black. Capitalising “facts”, do not make them facts.
Do you believe for a moment that there are less abortions in say New York than there were 100 years ago. Today almost 50% of babies of the black community do not make it to birth. In the Irish situation, are you suggesting that abortions will decrease from 4800 annually as soon as we open the “suicide” floodgates? I don’t.
The worst , and worsening, situation with unwanted pregnancies in the UK, is being relieved by their usual response, more sex education (i.e. classes in condom use), followed by the again worsening stats. followed by more calls for contraception classes etc. etc. There is a clue in the abortion statistics.
Hopefully most people, even those pro choice, are not deluded by your inversions.

Thankfully Scully, you are not God. I do not worship you and I care nothing for your “expertise” on the spiritual matters. Plenty good Catholics out there, was my comment to Shanti Om (whose comments I generally agree with, it has to be said). So I don’t think it’s fair to tar every one of them with the same brush. Delusional? Ouch, take me to the burn ward. I’m sure Jesus is delighted with your Christian words. No judgement there at all. I “LOL” at your hypocrisy.

Fair enough.

@ Paddy, these facts are not mine..
Here, see for yourself what “pro life” does for the world..
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

@B Collins, I guess it’s because I cannot see why someone would identify as Catholic – a sub sect of Christianity which stands in direct opposition to the message of the Christ they claim to follow – rather than just Christian? It seems as long as people identify as Catholic the guys in the Vatican feel that they are supported and justified – were the flock to turn away from their religion and back to the faith – the underlying Christian faith, then the corrupt guys in the Vatican may realise they no longer have any claim to power and may actually have to seek forgiveness rather than expect excusal..

@ Ciaran Dillon
Again Ciaran, read the whole thing, the people of Ephram were not model Jews. Mankind contributes to its own tragedies.
In your Num. example, it was the Israelites own “unfaithfulness” that brought about the tragedy. There is no example I’m aware of where god sticks a pen in a map and says ok well destroy these today. What is abundantly clear in all cases is that we are responsible for our actions, and that includes us the Irish.

And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
Exodus 12:29

It seems you have been praising a false god for you praise not the god of the bible. Breaking commandments. Tut tut, hell awaits.

@ Tomy Iona
Tomy on my part is like to say I believe all gay and atheists are fully human. For me fully human had divine origins, and fully deserving of all respect, especially the right to life.
I’m glad you recognise the dignity of the foetus, but then you go on to the ‘parasitic’ argument and wham. Yes the baby is dependant on the mother for sustenance, but we usually reserve the parasite title for cross species dependencies

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 And so god stuck his pen in a map and said “ok go and destroy them today”…

Yes you believe that us gays are fully deserving of respect, but that our families shouldn’t enjoy the same rights and protections as straight people’s families in the institute of civil marriage.

Paddy..
Parasite is a noun, it describes an organism that depends upon another organism for sustenance and may live on or in another organism.
Yes, most frequently when we refer to something as a parasite it is of a different species.

To describe something as “parasitic” does not imply that it *is* a parasite, simply that it shares similarities *with* a parasite. It is you who is trying to label the foetus a parasite, Tomy merely pointed out that until a certain point of gestation the only existence the foetus can have is dependent upon another organism (the mother).

Misrepresenting the argument of your opponent in order to try and strengthen your own, that’s called a straw man Paddy..

@ David Jordan
That is a fine comment David, and one I can sympathise with in many areas. Catholic teaching on gay issues is the same as its teaching to all single persons, but living a chaste life is not easy for any of us. I would point out that many gay people live chaste and fulfilling lives within the Catholic Church. I would also point out that homophobia is not exclusive to predominantly catholic societies. I believe homophobic bullying should form part of any anti bullying programme. I have no idea where you saw me “intending to do violence” to the LGBT community. Unless not agreeing with an aggressive LGBT agenda against marriage qualifies?

@ Shanti Om
There you go, always adding new issues. Infertile couples marry with the best of intentions, and possess all of the natural complementarities required for a marriage.

The devil makes use of the bible for his own ends

and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Deuteronomy 7:2

Time to admit it Paddy. Bible written by man and called the word of god to justify their actions.

You can hold a “pro-life” view point but using the bible as a foundation for that view point is ill-advised. It is one of the most immoral books in human history.

Paddy, the reason I add these issues is because contrary to your black and white views, there are always other issues. Life is not black and white – it’s multicolour. There are as many experiences of this life as there are people.
I know of a few infertile couples who married knowing full well procreation would never figure in their union.
They married as they wanted to stand up in front of all those they know (and their god, the Christian god) and proclaim their commitment to each other and their well founded faith in loves power – does this render your marriage devalued?

Paddy, you are deliberately misinterpreting my words, I was refaring to your pope’s blessing of the Ugandan speaker who is pushing though the “Kill the Gays” bill.
I am aware that their are socities that are homophobic besides Catholic socities.
You talk about an agressive LGBT agenda but how many anti-LGBT rights activists were killed by people campaigning for LGBT rights, none, the only casualties were on our side.
The Roman Church’s campaign against LGBT people who will not submit to their creed is simular to Ian Paisley’s campaign against Catholics in Northern Ireland, not openly calling for violence but definitly creating a enviroment that encourages it.
You say that you are being forced to act against your conscience but all you are being asked to do is render onto Caesar, what is Caesar’s. If you personally believe that it is wrong to have sex with another man, then don’t have sex with a man, if the Catholic Church doesn’t want to marry LGBT people, they will not be forced to, you can say the EU courts will force you to but no one who was devorced has managed to have the Roman Church forced to married them and I’d say there are a lot more devorced people then LGBT people.
If the Roman Church forces its view on the people of Ireland though the state, then by right it cannot complain when the Islamists do the same to Catholics in the middle east.
The right not to be transgressed against is contingent on yourself not transgressing on others.

@Paddy, as usual, misinterpreting and putting words in someone’s mouth.

And strangely, you distance yourself from the pope’s comments – isn’t that a parallel to the idea of “crossing your fingers behind your back”?! and still have not addressed the other points I have made in my first comment which points at the unquestioning loyalty that is required by a church in order to maintain itself as a system of control yet delivers pain.

In terms of my own stance on abortion – it has developed, quite recently in fact from believing in abortion in limited circumstance to relatively open abortion after looking into research around facets of the issue which are broader than the issues presented by the “pro-life” side.
Now I’m more informed I feel that it’s much less my right to decide for other people. That said, I feel the extreme end of the pro-choice movement gives no voice to potential fathers. I may be misinterpreting that myself but it feels that way.

In terms of same-sex marriage it in no way affects me. I’m not gay and have yet to have anyone against it present any reason other than a bogus one which just feels like disguised homophobia.
Just in case you present another failed point I’m going to bow out of this now, expecting little more to be added to the weakness of your argument. That is unless you have the guts to address my first comment, given you have avoided all opportunity there.

He’s been avoiding addressing any of my points all day so I wouldn’t hold out much hope Tomy.
At the very best we can hope that maybe, just maybe, Paddy might integrate the facts into his world view. That perhaps he will attempt to put himself in another persons shoes and empathise rather than assume he knows what is best for them without any thought or serious consideration. One day he, and maybe even the church itself, will learn to relinquish their desire for control over other peoples bodies and private lives.

@ David Jordan
David most of the legal rights in marriage relate to the children. I believe we all have rights otherwise, but just as in the abortion issue, the ones in need of protection are the children. A basic right for a child, in so far as possible, is the right to its own biological mother and father.

@ Shanti Om
Sorry I’m so far behind the discussion. Just to mention shanti, I would not rely on the Guttmachet institute for realisable information. As a mourhpiece and number masseur for Planned Parenthood, spawn of the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, they are likely to be biased, don’t you think?

Again, in a perfect world, a child should be raised by their biological parents but as the pope has said there is no utopia on this earth, so there are some children, abandoned, abused or given up for adoption and they have a right to a family life too.
Currently their are more of these children then there are people willing to adopt, so why is the Roman Church campaigning to stop LGBT people adopting, especially considering they are more willing to adopt special needs and older child who usually have little chance of adoption, rather then trying to get more of their own to adopt?
Does your hatred of gay people who do not live a lie run so deep that you would deny these children, good, loving homes?

Can you really decry the Guttmacht Institue will you yourself are a speaker for Catholic Comment, an astroturf PR group founded by Senator Ronan Mullen, infamous for acting as a PR man for Sean Brady and helping him manage the fallout from his involvement in the cover up of child abuse in the Catholic Church becoming public knowleage, his twenty minute fillibuster during the debate on civil partnership in attempt to force the vote on it to a later session and for snearing at a group of women who had travelled to Britain for an abortion.

http://www.catholiccomment.ie/speakers/

Ah Paddy.. Had you taken the time to read the article rather than just dismiss it based upon *your* bias you would have noticed that it referenced statistics provided by the WHO and the UN..
But maybe they’re eugenicists too, after all – by your logic, anyone who is pro choice is..