It shouldn’t be called Gay period as this is a perversion of the true meaning of the word “gay”.

Could you elaborate on that? I’m not sure I get your point.

Actually, scratch that: I totally get what you’re saying. It’s just that my disbelief got in the way. So, let’s see: the word ‘gay’ can have only *one* meaning? Better fire up the campaign to control the usage of words like… oooh… pan, suit, suite, fire…. Well, you get my drift.

Exactly Denise. He has no any right to comment or moralise about anything in Irish life when he walked away and abandoned children to known abusers. He has no say and I hope and pray that the blind zombie sheep who lap up every word that comes from these clerics at sunday |Mass start to use their own intelligence and ignore him. But in fairness their are intelligent Catholics out there who despise him and his control freaks in the church. I often wondered why the call him a Primate but i see now because he just loves to make a monkey out of himself.

Many single men are psychologists and psychiatrists. Do they have to have children and be married or sexually active to treat their patients?

I agree Fae.

Where’s my comment about the cult like operations of the CC gone?

Had a comment removed as well.

Actually, my mistake, my comment wasn’t removed! D’oh….

Great point John. Wouldn’t you just love to see his reaction, if some journalist put this to him?.

Amen to that Harry

You have to admit he does make a good argument.

The only way the catholic Church as an Institution with its clerics,(not those who practice their beliefs in good faith trying to lead as good a life as they can) can just lock themselves inside the vatican for a thousands years and then come out. They should have no say end of story.

And John Ryan too…

He used the words “most people on the street”
Not the basis for ANY good argument!!

Well said David. I am with my partner 8 years and we work hard and do our best and have loving families. We are struggling in this recession like everyone else. Our love and respect for each other is bigger than the bigotry demonstrated by brady. I am a catholic and i believe in God but as a loving and caring entity who loves everyone regardless of their failings. God doesn’t care who rears children as long as it is done with love. love is good no matter who it comes from. Brady thinks that prerogative is only the preserve on Married Straight Catholics who do not have sex only to have children. In short its a fantasy. Nobody just has sex to have children and if they do then they are seriously inhuman in their love and affection for each other. The church makes me sick the way they stick their noses into the bedroom. They did it to women for years in this country and caused untold misery. F*** you Brady. I heard the stories from my mother the way women were Churched afetr having a child. A celibate man had to pray over her at the back of the church to”cleanse” her. The greatest tragedy about this is these people were the most prayerful and good living people on the planet and their faith was build on a rock but its the Institutional Church with its man made rules and regulations is the author of its own destruction and the sooner it comes the better,

Well said Alan. Brady lacks the moral authority to discern what is and isn’t natural. Marriage should be a right for everyone not just for opposite sex folk who bow to a sinister religious sect.

true enough…

A child is better off with a Father and a Mother.

This is not always possible of course (single people can adopt).

Why?

Is there actually any evidence to support that assertion Ruth? I don’t believe there has been one study to date which is shown a father and mother are better than two fathers or two mothers (which wasn’t subsequently entirely debunked).

In any event, given the fact that there are so many children in care or up for adoption, could you not agree that a child is better off having two fathers or two mothers than non parents at all?

I don’t need some undergraduate to do a thesis to know that it’s raining outside.
Women and men are different. Fathers and Mothers are different.
Kids need their Fathers. Kids need their Mothers.
Sometimes this is not possible, but it should be the goal.
(So if a gay man adopts a child (which is possible at present), I’d not have a problem with joint custody with his partner).

So Ruth, what qualities do fathers have that children need but mothers don’t have and vice vera?

Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn’t, it’s that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such. –Homer Simpson

In modern Ireland, is it now a radical thing to say “Boys need their Fathers”?
My opinion derives from belief that Males and Females are different.

But what traits do the fathers provide to their sons that their mothers could not provide Ruth? You still haven’t answered my question.

Hi Ruth,

Let me pitch a hypothetical situation at you. Imagine two couples: one homosexual and one heterosexual. Imagine there’s a child up for adoption. The couples have been assessed on a range of qualities, including their ability to love, nurture, support and provide for a child. In this situation, the homosexual couple out-perform their heterosexual counterparts. Who do you believe should adopt the child and why?

Jaysus, you’re right. Whatever next? Male gynecologists?!

Why belong to a homophobic church then. There are wrong about everything.

Yeah? I find that a little puzzling myself. Saying “I am a Gay man and i am a catholic” seems like an oxymoron. A bit like saying “I’m a Jew, and an anti-semite.” I agree with the first part of your comment though Chris.

Because William the founder of the Church wasn’t homophobic. Jesus message is one of love not division so when i go into a church (I don’t go to sunday mass) I have him before me not the Institutional bigoted church.

Liam you have to understand Faith to get it. My faith is in God and there is truth in the church but it is made up of flawed human beings. I don’t have faith in men but God. Imagine it like going into a pub. Some may not like a certain clientele and avoid it but others have no problem going there but the label the whole pub as a bad place would be wrong. You have to see it through the eyes of faith not rules and regulations.

I understand your faith in god,you don’t need religion to have a relationship with god in my opinion.I still don’t understand how you can claim to be a Catholic though??? The point is,if you as a Catholic agree the bible is the word of god,then the god of the Catholic church considers you “an abomination” as stated :

“From the Holy Bible, the Word of God:
Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

Now you said ” My faith is in God and there is truth in the church but it is made up of flawed human beings.”

So if there is truth in the church as you say,then according to the church,you are not welcome,and “should be put to death”.This is what the church,which you consider to have “truth” teaches!!! I’m sorry Chris but Liam is right,that is an oxymoron.If the bible is the true word of god as is claimed,then should it not be followed to the letter and if not,then who as the authority to say what should be followed and what shouldn’t be ???

The thing I’ve noticed about most people in Ireland who said they’re Catholics is that their own beliefs are in fact closer to those of the Universal Unitarians then to Roman Catholicism.

Well said Chris.

@ Ru..

Leviticus is in the Old Testament. The new testament, which is the book Christians are supposed to base their faith upon, makes no such references to homosexuality. Indeed, Jesus had a very special relationship to one of his disciples and told Mary to take him as her son.

Jesus also pretty much ripped the old testament to shreds and called those who had written it hypocrites, he said that god resides in heaven and is not found in temples – yet the RCC have built their temples everywhere, indeed they have become the modern day Pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites and promised a special place in hell to.

Jesus is supposed to have said love one another as I have loved you, he was willing to die for the “you” in that statement, he didn’t qualify it as heterosexuals, Christians, male, female, or anything else – he meant EVERYONE.

Pity a large number of his followers missed that part of his message..

They do care because everything they do involves money. The sooner we get other people presiding over marraiges and baby naming cermonies and funerals the better. Then they might go away when there is no money in it for them. Schools are lucrative businesses for them.

I think using the term mainstream is confusing.

Do you?

Why does confuse me is when people get so upset by the Head of the Catholic Church in Ireland legitimately expressing the religious conviction of his faith.

Why shouldn’t the CC have the same advocacy rights as any other interest group?

He may be the head of the catholic church in Ireland, but he is morally bankrupt and deeply compromised in that position. His concern about the welfare of children seems to end once the umbilical cord is snipped.

Well, the KKK also believe they have a right to have their strongly held convictions heard – but I’m not interested in listening.

How on earth can we forgive the horrendous abuse that The Holy Catholic Church did to what they called fallen women!!!!!!!!

Part 2 is a couple of comments below…apologies for the split – the Ipod app was acting up so I had to come onto a pc to finish the post.

Hi @Caroline Locke, You may disagree with me, but my understanding of forgiveness is that it’s not to ease the conscience of the perpetrator, but to allow the victim to move on with their life, leave the pain behind and not be eternally poisoned by what was done to them.
If as a society we can forgive and move on, that’s when healing can begin. That doesn’t mean saying it was ever okay, or that we should let the likes happen again. It means learning from the past, accepting that what happened has happened (i.e. not hiding it or denying it) and moving on without bringing anger and hatred to future generations.
Easier said than done, I know, but by holding on to our anger and hatred over what has happened all we achieve is taking onto ourselves that poison inflicted on the innocent and pass it into the future lives of our children, grandchildren and beyond. Forgiveness can stop a cycle of hatred. I’m not convinced I can do it…but I want to!

It is baseless though. There’s absolutely no proof to support your statement and there won’t be any until same sex parenting is widespread and over a decent length of time.

Also it’s only a matter of time before opposite sexes aren’t required. Science is advancing, about two years ago they successfully created a mouse embryo using the DNA of two female mice. It will be a lot longer til we don’t need a uterus but I’d say lesbians will be well able to reproduce independent of men at some stage over the next century.

It could be argued that the most natural environment for a child is the most loving one! As long as the parents provide a safe and loving home, does it matter whether its a man and a woman, or two men? Or two women? It makes me sick to see that two junkies can have as many kids as they want while taking no responsibility for them, yet two men, who love each other and can provide the best possible life for a child, are completely ignored because of their sexuality!

This argument makes just the same amount of sense if you use the exact same logic to argue that white parents are better suited to adopting white children. Your fatal assumption is the theory that trying to find a family environment as identical as the one the child was born into is the best strategy, which considering the reason why a lot of children are put up for adoption probably isn’t a good theory.

There are also gay animals and lots of other variations. Should i go out and have sex with animals because nature provided me the organs to do it??? Sure isn’t it all nature. You can justify anything in that.

Most reports would actually suggest that having two loving parents, regardless of gender is the most important thing for a child. I was brought up simply by my mother alone, and if I had two of her, I would have delighted!

A good rule of thumb is to always be wary of someone who claims to speak on behalf of ‘most people on the street’.

Nature didn’t intend anything.
“Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic. If something as wide ranging as that has intentions on how Homo Sapiens should rear their young, then all Scientists everywhere then to start again at square one

this makes me laugh. someone said this to me once when i was younger. funny thing is his kids were neglected because they were ‘mistakes

The rules of nature have outlived the rules of man, it is not inaccurate to state that nature does not allow for a same sex couple to create life, it does not. That does not mean that they can’t be good parents, clearly they can but it is not bigoted or prejudicial to suggest that the ideal alternative family for a child is that closest to the the natural relationship that created it.

“Nature intended children to be raised by a father and mother.”

That’s odd because traditionally, until very recently, a father wouldn’t be involved with the raising of the children. It would generally be in the remit of the mother for at least the first decade. The father’s role was pretty much restricted to being a provider.

“Nature intended children to be raised by a father and mother” – so lets confiscate the children of single parents. nature by the way also kills thousands of people every year in tornados and earthquakes. logic is a better yardstick to live by in my opinion.

“Who in their right mind would think that it’s healthier for a same sex couple to raise children?” – who said it would be “healthier”? big difference between it being ‘healthy’ and ‘healthier than’ something else.

hetero people/couples have kids if they are fully prepared, poor, insane, geniuses, addicts, rich, 15 yrs old. couples, regardless of orientation, only adopt if they are screened thoroughly, healthy, secure and generally really want and are ready to raise a child.

Same sex couples have no fundamental right to adopt the children of others. If one of the couple is the parent then that’s a compelling reason for the non parent partner to adopt the child but if the state is to choose between a same sex union or a heterosexual union as a preferred environment for a third parties child, do people believe it is a fundamental right for the same sex couple to adopt the third party’s child? Is it not fair to say that the infuence of both sex’s on a childs development is preferential to the child, without such being taken as been unfair and derogatory towards same sex couples?

Just to clarify Same sex couple “and hetero couples” have no fundamental right to adopt the children of others is what that should have said, effectively no one has a fundamental right to take custody of the child of another is the point I was making

thinking in ideals is a destructive way of thinking. thinking in ideals gets people obsessed with beauty and fame. what on earth has this extremely elusive ‘ideal’ situation got to do with the realities of life? i myself have an alcoholic father who was nothing but trouble growing up. was that an ideal situation just cause i had a mother and a father? he would never have gotten past the adoption screening test. there is no ‘ideal’, its a fantasy. the ideal is good parenting.

love how he just posts one bigoted message and is away without ever defending his views. Typical!!

He’s no worse than the Cardinal, Gavin: he also made unsubstantiated statements on the issue. Just once, I’d like to see a church figure or one of the “concerned” laity articulate HOW the institution of marriage would be jeopardized. No matter how often I ask the question, I never get an answer. Which is an answer in itself: the institution of marriage would not and could not be jeopardized by it.

‘Who in their right mind would think that it’s healthier for a same sex couple to raise children?’ Well there’s a lot of people who think it’s just as healthy including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

actually I’d say the Cardinal is worse. Having more of an influence when he opens his ill-informed mouth!!

There is no evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple has any detrimental effect on a child. Nature in fact has no intention. Homosexuality is natural, as is heterosexuality, and is seen in numerous species.

The only arguments against gay adoption are religious, and I won’t have religion or faith dictating public policy in my country.

As someone who is heterosexual, I think marriage would have something added to it if same sex couples were able to marry.

You ask who? I would say, judging from the red thumbs you get on this and on other comments you have made recently, that it’s about 4 out of 5 readers!

Funny cos I’m looking at my cat and her kittens here and lo and behold I’ve never seen sight nor sound of the Tom cat that fathered them. I also watched a documentary about some turtles the other day who laid eggs in the sand fertilised then and then ran off. The majority of the hatchlings were then eaten by birds and fish. It doesn’t really fit your limited view. Please be well versed about ‘nature’ when making wide statements about it. As for the cardinal; it’s very difficult to take advice for a person who lives a life completely divorced from reality.

The man , with whon I seldom agre,said that heterosexual marriage was the best in which to raise children. That is a very acceptable opinion. Do not just down him because he represents a church that it has lost the faith of people.

but he’s wrong tho! It’s not always the best situation!!

Can an opinion be so acceptable that it requires not a single shred of justification Rory? I’m sick of hearing crap about what nature intended – it’s just another way of pontificating but using the word “nature” in place of “god”. If you so firmly believe in your position, then please provide some factual evidence to support your claims, rather than pointless fables about nature.

That’s bull John. A child needs love. The thought that same sex parents are evil stems from the same belief structure that to be gay is a lifestyle choice

Is same sex attraction hereditary ?

‘Is same sex attraction hereditary ?’

There is a very strong body of evidence to suggest that sexuality is largely hereditary. The evidence is nicely compiled in the following book: ‘Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sexual Orientation’ by Drs Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman.

Just to note, there is no single on/off ‘gay gene’. Instead, the research suggests a complex interplay between various genes and the hormonal environment of the womb, with the foundations of future orientation
laid down in the developing foetal brain as early as the first trimester.

Forget about the rights of the parents or the church!!…, that kid with 2 Dads / Mums etc it’s life will be hell in any school yard. NOT a good solution for the child.

well then let’s educate the children to not be so minded.
Doesn’t mean we have to deny a large group of people the ability to raise children!

John (My favourite apostle’s name btw!) – Don’t let the non-believers and thos peddling perversity rattle you! You are a lion of Jesus and we both know that Jesus wouldn’t stand for the coupling of like gender. Nature and Jesus and Father Brady… I shall say a prayer for all three!

Beth wasn’t he that fella that preached love and understanding and to “love thy neighbour as thyself” and “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, in other words “you can’t judge anyone because you’re not perfect either”
So I reckon you might have got him wrong their!!

Tell me about it. The amount of men I’ve tried to impregnate…you just can’t beat science. I’ll still try though!

That’s more of a reason to launch a campaign to get rid of the continued homophobic bullying in our schools then to prevent same sex couples from marrying and having kids. Our schools have a terrible record when it comes to protecting LGBT students from bullying, often due to apathy or fears over “ethos” from staff.

Yet the reality is there are children being raised by same sex couples. They’re not some myth. So you have Brady telling children that they’re not being raised correctly.

It may be a logical conclusion Sean but it’s not borne out by any of the research on this issue. There are too many variables, that’s why overall outcomes are measured. It’s generally agreed that children with homosexual parents have equal outcomes to children of heterosexual parents. Go and have a look yourself.

Sean, that’s a fair and understandable concern to a degree, but if Brady adopted a policy of inclusion, instead of one of exclusion, then he would be undermining the legitimacy of those bullies to bully. It seems to me, that he neither cares for policies of inclusion, the adult victims of his policies of exclusion, or indeed, the vulnerable children of those adults.

Who is depriving him of his rights? He made a comment and people are posting about it.

The man can express his opinion til the cows come home but that’s not really his thing, y’see. The man wants his opinion enshrined in the country’s laws. I’d have a problem with that, to be honest, because he doesn’t have the world’s greatest track record when it comes to morality and the superiority thereof, upon which this opinion and his apparent need for it to be legislated for, is derived.

When you’re the head of the catholic church in Ireland, you cannot express an opinion on a subject such as this in isolation. He’s quite free to qualify his statements by preceding them with words such as “My view as a private citizen is……” or ending the statement with words such as “….but I do not express that view in my capacity as head of the catholic church in Ireland.”

He did not.

“The man is expressing his opinion. That you may consider him wrong is no reason to deprive him of that right.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/fr-brian-darcy-censured-by-vatican-watchdog-report-430929-Apr2012/

But as the law stands today the child would remain a legal stranger to one parent, creating problems for the child in situations of bereavement, inheritance and parental consent. Marriage also grants its particpants rights such as the ability to act as next of kin and others, a same-sex marriage abroad would not be reconised here.
Marriage is not a solely religious affair, as I’ve said about it grants rights to its particpants which come from the state. It should be also be noted that there are several LGBT afferming religions such as Quakers, Universal Unitarians and Buddhism who have no problem with marriage equality and are currently being denied their right to preform these unions, and many people enter into civil marriages that have no religious element, atheist being the obvious example.
Finally, people should not have to travel to obtain a marriage if their is nothing wrong with their union.

David,
Yeah get what you mean. Should just let people vote and get it over and done with. Thanks for clarifying a few things

Nobody should need to vote to give any citizen of this republic equal rights. That’s why we call them rights!