Saturday, December 8, 2012

Tagged under:

Kampala Klansmen Running Stormont

The North might not be a ‘third world’ tin pot dictatorship but some of the dinosaurs and theocrats it is home to exhibit behaviour and perspectives that suggest they are uncomfortable with the mores of what they deem the ‘first world.’

In the recent past the radical Stormont administration voted down a motion that if passed would have allowed same-sex couples to be married in the North. Sinn Fein and the Green Party were behind the joint proposal but it was suffocated by the DUP. The Guardian reported that both the DUP and UUP had come under pressure from Protestant churches to scuttle the move. Anything malign and the smell of a cleric can be found lingering.

The Presbyterian Church said gay marriage would ‘effectively demolish generations and centuries of societal norms established on Judeo-Christian values.’ They easily overlook that religious opinion is for religious people and no one else. Judeo-Christian values should be practiced on those who hold them but are not to be inflicted on those who do not.

Faced with this type of religious driven anti-gay prejudice the charity group Stonewall last month awarded Scottish cardinal Keith O’Brien its bigot of the year award. Stonewall Scotland director Colin MacFarlane said:

I think given the language used by the cardinal over the past few years and by those other people nominated, I would say bigot is quite a moderate term to use. Stonewall’s task is to shine a light on discrimination.

The Catholic Church in response accused Stonewall of trying to vilify its opponents.

Stonewall and others have promoted terms like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ relentlessly, in order to intimidate and vilify anyone who dares oppose their agenda. It is an agenda which the wider public does not endorse and which their excessive language has undermined.

Stonewall merely called it as it was; no mention of sinners or abomination. Nor did it threaten to see people burn forever amen.  Anti-gay prejudice is simply nothing other than bigotry and those who advocate it are bigots. Simple as.

The bigoted North might not be in the same league as Uganda but there is little that would cast doubt on the notion that enough of the Neanderthal type are embedded in Stormont who would not object in the slightest were the place to go that way. The geographic distance from Belfast to Kampala hardly captures the proximity of the thought between the two. In the African country there is a bill popularly known as 'Kill the Gays' because it advocates the death penalty for aggressive homosexuality. Last month the country’s ruling dictator Yoweri Museveni dedicated Uganda to god and renounced the ‘Satanic influence’ of the previous fifty years. He failed to mention that for half of those fifty years he has ruled the country.

As blind as he is as he is bigoted, if ever overthrown there are no prizes for guessing where he will apply for political asylum.

142 comments :

itsjustmacker said...

wtf.

Am I the only one who is not gay?.

I say it as it is, two males having sex with each other or two females having sex with each other has to be a deformity within there brain, Its not an illness, its how they were born, they cant help it, whether they were born female or male, there brain tells them they are the opposite sex. What causes this can only be through either parent, so just let them get on with there lives. But. one thing I am Strongly against is, same sex relationships adopting children, to me that has to be abnormal, what life will that adopted child have, will he/she be forced to be gay?.

AM said...

Itsjustmacker,

2 points.

A deformity? Why? This depicts it as an abnormality. What were bisexual brains born with?

Why should gay people be discriminated against and denied the right to adopt children?

The child might have a very good life, one that is better than the situation they were 'adopted out' from. Why would they be forced to be gay? It seems that there is more force being applied the other way. Kids are facing pressure to be straight.

An Buachaill said...

itsjustmacker,

If you oppose gay adoption then you oppose equality.

Gay people should be allowed to live their lives and have the same rules and regulations applied to them as everybody else in all aspects of life, including when seeking to adopt children.

Why would someone be forced to be gay just because they live with a gay parent? I know a few openly gay people and they are not 'anti-straight'. Most gay people understand that you are born with sexual preferences and these cannot be forced upon anybody.

The child may have a very good life with two loving parents provided they can provide for the child's needs.

You say that two same sex people having sex must have a deformity within their brain, what evidence do you base this on?

marty said...

Itsjustmacker a cara are ya honestly telling me you never fantasized over two women making love,the churches are control freaks and freaks full stop for them to tell anyone how to live their lives the response should be fuck off and get one yourself,I,d rather leave a child in the care of a gay person than with a man in a dress...or his boss who carries a sheep shaggers crook..

AM said...

Apologies for the faux pas at the end of the article. Too rushed to get it finished in order to get watching The Killing It is sorted now

larry hughes said...

'A deformity? Why? This depicts it as an abnormality. What were bisexual brains born with?'

DEVIANCE and perversion.

No way should gay couples be permitted to adopt.

Marty

do you fantasise about two men 'making love'? if not why not?


Belfast Bookworm said...

All of this is great. It exposes these mindless bigots and drives more and more right thinking people away.

Itsjustmacker. Deformity? .. I have no words.

On the issue of same sex adoption, why should this even come into it? The adoption process requires rigorous assessment of prospective parents, probing whether they can financially, physically and emotionally support a child.

If any individual or couple can provide this in a world where children are starved, abused, exploited and neglected then they get my vote.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; deviance and perversion?

Are you on a fishing exercise here.

It always amazes me how people who are apparently absolutely committed to equality, human rights and fairness turn out to be closet homophobic bigots.

I think the catholic church has got under the skin and embedded their hateful teachings in some people much more than they'd care to admit.

AM said...

Larry,

why would it be deviance and perversion? Is it an abomination as well?

And why should children be denied the type of situation Belfast bookwormm describes and perhaps instead put in the type of straight home where say Geoffrey Briggs was the male partner?

larry hughes said...

Belfast bookworm

'I think the catholic church has got under the skin and embedded their hateful teachings in some people much more than they'd care to admit.'

Bang on the money, they did it with their gay and perverted priests raping kids and doing 'bugger-all' to prevent it going on for decades.

We're back in PC wonderland here methinks.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

Having PC types trying to force me into thinking that two men kissing on tv on a sunday afternoon at lunch-time is 'normal' proceedure absolutely IS an abomination.

Massochism and S+M are minority preferences, that doesn't make THEM 'normal' either.

michaelhenry said...

ItsJustMacker-

" Will he /she be forced to be gay? "-

Would you force anyone to be straight or un-gay or to live without sex-and dont be giving me that mumbo-jumbo about priests living without sex-they are grown men-there is no way they can be alive and be without sex-

Marty-

" are ya honestly telling me you never fantasized over two women making love "

Well thats done my head in-cant think of nothing else now-maybe a pint or ten will cure me-

marty said...

Larry two guys making love doesnt do anything for me,probably due to those nice members of her majesty,s security forces fascination with my nuts over the years,had they been gentle we,ll never know but to use them as a squeeze bag was a big turn of... I agree with Belfast bookworm if prospective guardians of any child are properly vetted and found capable of giving a child a loving and secure home then the gender of the guardians should play no part in the decision making process

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; normal is, normal does.

Relating homosexuality to paedophilia is just plain stupid. As Marty said, I'd feel safe leaving my child with a gay man.

Michael Henry; sometimes you're funny. Pity you're a you-know-what! Would you not think about coming over to the dark side?

AM said...

Larry,

I don't think we have seen any PC types trying to force you to watch men kiss on TV on a Sunday afternoon. If they have you tied up and are administering electric shocks everytime you avert your eyes let me know and I will swap places with you as S & M seems ok!

If you were being forced to watch two men kissing or a man and woman kissing, the force would be the abomination not what you were watching on TV.

Massochism and S+M are minority preferences, that doesn't make THEM 'normal' either.

Nor abnormal if by abnormal we mean wrong or perverted. It depends on the inflection we give a term. A bit like dissident. Most people would see dissident as an honourbale thing but here the term has been given a very negative inflection. Rare bird watching is probably a minority activity here and could be regarded as not the normal hobby to pursue but that hardly makes it 'abnormal'.

Gay priests and straight priests raped kids. I think Alfie elsewhere has dealt pretty comprehensively with the suggestion that the clerical rape of children was a result of an influx of gay priests.

What consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own affair and not something that should be demonised by society.

larry hughes said...

mackers

'What consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own affair and not something that should be demonised by society.'

Totally agree. Same as those deviances and fetishes I think people should do what the want in private. But that doesn't make it the norm.

larry hughes said...

Marty
'Larry two guys making love doesnt do anything for me'

Two lesbians engaged in sex wouldn't want you looking at them never mind joining in.

larry hughes said...

Just a thought. We've all slept with a few dogs in our time I'm sure, so I suppose that makes beastiality normal...

AM said...

Larry,

it doesn't have to be the norm in order to escape being pejoratively labelled abnormal.

We have people in society have tried to label divorce deviance.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

But those activities which are not the 'norm' we find ourselves being pressured to accept as normal.

AM said...

Larry,

we don't. We find ourselves being asked not to treat difference as abnormal. We are not being asked to accept it as normal behaviour for ourselves who do not engage in it but normal - in the sense that no stigma should be attached to it - for those who do. Straight sex is not normal for gay people but they should not seek to stigmatise it as abnormal or deviant.

michaelhenry said...

Belfast Bookworm-

" coming over to the dark side? "

Who would have me-

Larry-

" We've all slept with a few dogs in our time "

The animal cruelty people are about to lock me up-

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; surely 'the norm' only becomes the norm when something becomes popular, common or grows in number? Or when society or the media becomes more aware or pays more attention to an issue.

The norm doesn't mean 'normal' as opposed to abnormal.

larry hughes said...

It is not the norm and shouldn't be presented or promoted as such.

If it was scientifically possible to facilitate men to have a baby would that make it natural?

NOT NORMAL.

larry hughes said...

Michaelhenry

'The animal cruelty people are about to lock me up'

Doubled over at that. Maybe you cornered the beastie vote in Tyrone.

AM said...

Larry,

the norm is only what is popular. Sex is for enjoyment every bit as much as it is for procreation. Nobody gets pregnant though oral sex yet that is regarded as the norm. If consenting adults of the same sex enjoy sex so what? Why should it concern us?

larry hughes said...

Don't care how much or how little sex gays have, i'm just saying there's no reason for them to be entitled to a child.

AM said...

improving the quality of that child's life seems entitlement enough to me

larry hughes said...

A 'normal' couple could do that without the PC brainwashing required for the child in question.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; an entitlement to have children?

Are child molesters, neglecters, abusers, fascists, religious nuts any more entitled to have children?

If a gay couple is good, decent, loving and supportive then surely they'd make better parents than any/all of the above? If that gay couple happens to be evil, bad, neglectful whatever, then they don't deserve to have children but the fact that they're gay shouldn't come into it.

AM said...

A normal gay couple every bit as much as a normal straight couple

larry hughes said...

Mackers

'A normal gay couple every bit as much as a normal straight couple'

how many kids in your class had same sex mummy+daddy?

Just don't think its an environment for kids. A deprived needful child will have enough to contend with without the gay debate, in my opinion. Young kids don't have a PHD in philosophy. Or PC. They could end up with one in 'confusion and bullying though.

Belfast bookworm

'Are child molesters, neglecters, abusers, fascists, religious nuts any more entitled to have children?'

If they can reproduce then yes.

Aine said...

The homophobic rantings here on this thread are just unacceptable....it's not okay to have an oppressive attitude against anyone because of their sexual preferences .... how we enjoy our sex lives really has no connection to parenting or entitlement/ability to do so....... your attitudes sucks.

AM said...

Larry,

how many kids in your class had same sex mummy+daddy?

As many as supported Glasgow Rangers I imagine. But that would only make them different not abnormal. As many as were divorced also I guess. But that doesn’t make divorced parents abnormal either.

Just don't think its an environment for kids.

But you didn’t raise the environment objection when Belfast Bookworm put it to you about abusers and neglecters. Regardless it is an opinion you are entitled to hold although you seem to express it in prejudiced rather than rational form. As I said to you before my own prejudice jumped up when the Elton John and his partner parented a baby but I realised that is all it was: a prejudice as a result of being confronted with something I was not used to. If they bring the child up well, great. There used to be a belief that children should not be adopted by parents of a different colour. I am sure there are still people who feel that way but it is most likely due to their prejudices than out of any regard for the child.

Young kids don't have a PHD in philosophy. Or PC. They could end up with one in 'confusion and bullying though.

All the bullies I ever met came from mother-father homes. Do you know any that didn’t?

But in your response to Belfast Bookworm it seems your argument hinges on the ability to reproduce. Yet many people adopt because they can’t reproduce. Moreover, if those who neglect and abuse are more entitled to adopt than same sex couples who do not neglect or abuse then your argument has nothing to do with the wellbeing of children but the wellbeing of abusers and neglecters.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

It's merely my own opinion. I just can't fathom that Elton John and his boyfriend would be deemed appropriate for adopting regardless of their wealth. I personally wouldn't want a young child of mine adopted by say, George Michael and/or Boy George for example. What I see at gay pride parades are people bordering on a 'freak show' putting it up to society. Not dignified people expressing their alternative sexual preference or love for each other. It's 'in your face' kind of freakery stuff. I'm not interested in it or being PC hussled into saying black is white, they aint normal. I'm personally glad they can't reproduce it would bring sci-fi space show mutants into reality.

Aine.

'how we enjoy our sex lives really has no connection to parenting or entitlement/ability to do so....... your attitudes sucks'

screw away I say. Don't ask me to vote for handing anyones child to them. That's all. NOT NORMAL.

larry hughes said...

Mackers

'All the bullies I ever met came from mother-father homes. Do you know any that didn’t?'

maybe a chils with two daddys would take the bullying away from the rest, a common target? Kids have enough to deal with without trying to cope with that or trying to explain to everyone in the school yard that two daddys is the way to go...lol Hardly best for the kid throwing that in with everything else.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; would you say mixed sex couples who can't reproduce in the tradional way and have to have IVF treatment are less entitled to have kids?

John McGirr said...

"The homophobic rantings here on this thread are just unacceptable...."

Why? Do 'homophobes' not have a right to tolerance and diversity?

Some of us are not queer, some of us still think it is a perversion, as all of us used to; and that includes many people in African states.

I'm glad to see a Nobel peace prize winner stand up against the new colonialism of the decadent left who have put down the red flag to fly a pink one and are seeking to force African nations to accept their perversions.

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/world/2012/mar/19/nobel-peace-prize-law-homosexuality

Your colonial days are over. You can't control the decisions of those in Africa who rightly refuse to adopt western, liberal perversions at whatever cost of the bullying of the Clinton-Blair axis of evil.

Accusations of bigotry are laughable.

"Anti-'homophobe' prejudice is simply nothing other than bigotry and those who advocate it are bigots. Simple as."

marty said...

If Patrick Moore ever interfered with Uranus...nows the time to mention it..

John McGirr said...

AM,

"Gay priests and straight priests raped kids. I think Alfie elsewhere has dealt pretty comprehensively with the suggestion that the clerical rape of children was a result of an influx of gay priests."

Over 80% of clerical rape was man/boy. Since classical antiquity that has been a typical homosexual behaviour.

What Alfie has, (maybe), shown is that non-clerical homosexuals are not as inclined to engage in child molesting as clerical homosexuals are. Not quite the same thing.

Belfast Bookworm,

"Are ..., fascists, religious nuts any more entitled to have children?"

What a chilling and revealing comment!

itsjustmacker said...

wow!, seems I'm on the whipping end with these questions, well firstly.
MARTY , nice to know off your fantasy, and, NO, its never crossed my mind, I was happily married to the same woman for thirty years,(R.I.P.), and we have seven beautiful children, All Grown Up now, and they have given me 9 grandchildren.
Now I will answer they rest of you's all in one goe, "Deformity", I stand by that word because to me its not normal for two people of the same sex , to have sex with each other, that doesn't say I am anti gay, as I stated, Its not there fault, Its how they were born, thus a malfunction in the brains hormone cells. As for the shirt lifting priests, They have bucket's full off sperm, "THERE OWN", Now for the crunch, Same sex (Gays) adopting children, It has been stated that some of you would be happy to let a gay couple baby sit your child, so I will answer that with this, Christmas primary school play, teacher ask young boy/girl, is you mum and dad coming, little boy/girl answers, I don't have a Mum/Dad, I have two Daddies/Mums, that would follow those children right through there school life, getting name called etc, would any off you want a child to go through that?. and Please don't call me anti Gay, I am not that sort of person, I am against gay couples being allowed to adopt children for the very reason which I have stated, lastly, as for bisexuals, to me they don't know if they are coming or going!, and If any of you are Gay, I have answered your questions as politely and honestly to the best of my ability.

Fionnuala Perry said...

John,
Your statement is so untrue it is pathetic. Those Priests who preyed on children were paedophiles-what you are saying sounds ridiculous.
It is almost as ridiculous as the comments that all priests prey on children.
There is not any credible research to back up that statement and it is not only insulting to homosexual people it is insulting to anyone reading it.

Fionnuala Perry said...

John,
I should have also said, I wonder where children like Milly Martin would be today if she was raised by a homosexual couple rather than the twisted hetrosexual macho bible bashing thug who abused and murdered her, no doubt she would be dreaming of Santa and Christmas like little children should.
Mackers, I think these are attitudes that black flags should be hoisted over-makes you want to scream fcuking wise up!

larry hughes said...

marty

'If Patrick Moore ever interfered with Uranus...nows the time to mention it..'

just out of a lecture and that seriously made my night!! Did the boul Patrick work for the BBC?

Belfast bookworm

some normal couples require medical assitance in cases such as endemitriosis or blocked ovaries. No matter how many times a man has his arse cleaned out then lets another man ejaculate into it there will be no reproduction. Frankly i dont get your screwed up point. How much help do two men need to naturally produce a baby??

AM said...

Larry,

But this could happen in any situation. I always thought about it in the North – if the kids would be bullied at school or on the streets because of my views. The problem is the bully not the same sex parent. And it the bully succeeds there will be no change.

Aine/Nuala,

I know.

AM said...

Larry,

human culture has evolved in such a way that it can allow for sex without reproduction. If only reproductive sex were permissible then much normal sexual activity between men and women would be cut out. The less sex and reproduction become indivisible the more the product of reproduction (the acquisition children) can arguably gain a status independent of sex. The question is whether those same sex couples who cannot reproduce have the same rights to child acquisition as opposite sex couples who cannot reproduce?

What does society do when a widowed mother of children decides to move in with a woman or a widowed father of children decides to move in with a man? Should the children be taken away from them? And if so where do they go given that the partners are no longer alive?

AM said...

Itsjustmacker,

you don't strike me as anti-gay but I still think you have called it wrong. As I suggested to Larry, why leave it at bullying or tauntint/teasing of the children of same sex couples? Should we not extend it to the children of dissenters/dissidents and discourage their parents having views that might lead to their children being bullied?

I see this as a pretty lame argument against same sex couples adopting.

The type of argument we would need to be exposed to is one where a research consensus based on empirical studies suggests that a child is more likely to be harmed psychologically or emotionally as a result of being placed in a same sex family. What experience tells us at the minute is that there are a lot of abused children who were in family homes with opposite sex parents/guardians. If we recall the case of Baby P, his torture killing did not result from same sex parents. That little child could have benefited immensely from normal loving same sex parents.

larry hughes said...

mackers

i already stated i dont care how much sex gays engage in. im not for them being given some dead persons child. Maybe a will should be made to that effect...no freak to get my baby.

John McGirr said...

Fionnuala,

"Your statement is so untrue it is pathetic."

Which statement is not true?

Are you denying that approximately 80% of clerical abuse is between a man and a boy?

"Those Priests who preyed on children were paedophiles-what you are saying sounds ridiculous."

I haven't said they weren't, although, now that you mention it, many of them do not fit in to the typical paedophile behaviour pattern.

I am only saying the targets were generally other males. Is that not the case?

If Jimmy Saville generally attacked females, clerics generally attacked males. If the one is heterosexual abuse, the other is homosexual abuse. That is not to say that all heterosexuals abuse girls any more than it is to say that all homosexuals abuse boys. It is just to recognise the facts.

"There is not any credible research to back up that statement and it is not only insulting to homosexual people it is insulting to anyone reading it."

In fact there is, see the John Jay report. That is where I got the statistic.

AM said...

Larry,

if people say that in a will, a lot of people with views that don't fit could be denied. Where would that leave the child? Some extreme nationalist might call you and me a freak because we are married to foreigners.

Are you saying gay people are freaks?

larry hughes said...

i'm saying they have no entitlement to children. They have a right to be treated under the law as everyone else and what they do in privacy is their own business. i dont want them forcefully making it mine.

I was born to be 5ft fuck all, do you hear me demanding to be enabled as a 6 footer? get over it for fuck sake.

Elton john and those freaks at gay rainbow parades are not fit to take control of anyones child. Ladyboys are freaks too. YES they are not the normal run of the mill human being. But thats fine, high principled people and PC moguls are only tools for these people.

AM said...

Larry,

They have a right to be treated under the law as everyone else

But how can they be treated equally if they are to be denied the right to adopt? That sound like some are more equal than others.


and what they do in privacy is their own business. i dont want them forcefully making it mine.

But the coercion lies with those who want the law to coerce them out of adopting children. They are not trying to coerce you into adoption.

I was born to be 5ft fuck all, do you hear me demanding to be enabled as a 6 footer?

People who might want to dye their hair, get thier boobs enlarged, have face lifts etc - no point in making illegal and coercing them into sticking to what they were born with.

What freaks are we talking about? Are gays freaks?

I don't think we ever see these PC people you refer to. SF used to blame securocrats every time they couldn't progress the argument. The notion that everything will be fine if only the bogeyman of choice would stay away doesn't get very far.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John McGirr; FYI - when a man rapes a boy this is known and referred to by police, psychologists, social workers etc, as same sex or male-male molestation. This is fact.

A male priest raping a boy is not an indication that the priest is homosexual. It's an indication that the priest is a pervert who strives for power and control.

Fionnuala Perry said...

John,
This just gets better they abused boys because they were more accessible. Altar boys might b a clue, paedophiles prey on children and it is whatever is on offer.
John you drool this nonsense every time the priest abuse comes to the fore you trawl through Internet sites that gives credence to this rubbish.
Heterosexuals are more likely to abuse children than homosexuals. I was taught that on a course designed specifically around abuse of children. The same course taught that children are more likely to be abused by a parent than a priest. During that course which was indepth, as we needed it for working daily with children homosexuals as a serious threat to children were not even on the radar.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; my 'screwed up point' was in response to you saying people who can't reproduce naturally aren't entitled to have children. I used the IVF example to refute your point.

I'm well aware of the reasons why some people need IVF and it goes much deeper than the reasons you gave which were only highlighting problems women face. Couples sometimes need IVF because a man doesn't produce sperm. Men are also part of this process in case you didn't know. Are these men not entitled to have a crack at parenthood?

AM said...

Belfast Bookworm,

who strives for power and control

sort of sums up religion and Churches

larry hughes said...

mackers

feel free to give some 'rainbow warrior' your kids. mine are off limits...so is my dog.

belfast bookworm.

'men are also part of this process in case you didn't know. Are these men not entitled to have a crack at parenthood?'

in a normal marriage, probably prime adoption material.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; what?

You have clearly now resorted to talking gibberish - an improvement on your recent rants mind you, but gibberish nonetheless.

itsjustmacker said...

Anthony.
" why leave it at bullying or tauntint/teasing of the children of same sex couples? ".

Firstly, Bullying in schools has being going on since schools began, secondly, I was putting a point over that, Those specific children who have been adopted by same sex parents would get the brunt of abuse and bullying, think of the questions which would be thrown at those children about there same sex parents sexuality, and, I'm not trying to be ignorant nor vulgar, Qs like, "Who were's the Dress then", "Who gets on top", "Do you sleep with your two Daddies/Mammies", those are the tip of the iceberg Qs, Sorry Anthony, I have to disagree with you, "I Haven't Got It Wrong".

itsjustmacker said...

An Buachaill

If you oppose gay adoption then you oppose equality.

You don't know who wrong you are!.
With others I marched for it, got battered for it, got locked up for it, got tortured for it. there are those on this blog who will know what I'm talking about and went through the same thing, Equality is exactly what we all marched for, But, because i object to same sex couple being allowed to adopt children does not make me oppose equality. That's all I will be saying on this subject, to I say I take offence to your statement, would in fact be an understatement.

larry hughes said...

good programe on sky 1 channel 106

An idiot abroad 3. theres a wee mini-me charachter in it proving life is what you make it and he's playing the hand he was dealt.

for the 'rainbow warriors' on the Quill... your channel is sky living channel 122 ladyboys. enjoy!

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

“FYI - when a man rapes a boy this is known and referred to by police, psychologists, social workers etc, as same sex or male-male molestation. This is fact.”

A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex is known as a homosexual, derived from ‘homo’ (same) ‘sexual’. If you want to call it ‘same sex molestation’ that is fine by me. I will call it homosexual molestation. As they both mean the same thing, I don’t mind what you want to call it.

“A male priest raping a boy is not an indication that the priest is homosexual. It's an indication that the priest is a pervert who strives for power and control.”

It is not necessarily an indication that he would be an average homosexual, I agree. But those who target boys on an ongoing basis are, by definition, engaging in homosexual activity.

Fionnuala,

“This just gets better they abused boys because they were more accessible. Altar boys might b a clue, paedophiles prey on children and it is whatever is on offer.”

I don’t believe that boys were any more accessible. One of the foremost authorities on the subject, Leon Podles , didn’t buy that line either. Unlike you though, I have an open mind. Maybe it was purely accessibility. Maybe it was deliberate. I can only go on the 80% statistic and call it as it is.

“John you drool this nonsense every time the priest abuse comes to the fore you trawl through Internet sites that gives credence to this rubbish.”

Let’s face it, Fionnuala, I could say it is cold outside and you would say I am wrong, and I could produce a thermometer and you would just accuse me of something else. Am I bothered? Nope! The more you protest, the more you are seeming to have an agenda. I thought I was making a quite non-controversial statement of fact.

“Heterosexuals are more likely to abuse children than homosexuals. I was taught that on a course designed specifically around abuse of children.”

Wow! You can tell me what you like, but I am still left with the fact that 80% of abuse against children by clerics is of a homosexual nature, (call it ‘same-sex molestation’ if you like). That is called a fact.

“The same course taught that children are more likely to be abused by a parent than a priest. During that course which was indepth, as we needed it for working daily with children homosexuals as a serious threat to children were not even on the radar.”

I have no idea if homosexuals in the general public abuse more or less than heterosexuals. You may be right. I don’t believe that I have ever claimed otherwise, but I certainly would not want them to get access to children. The natural, normal way is for a mammy and a daddy to look after children. Long may that continue.

Simon said...

People shouldn't be discriminated against because of something innate, like gender or ethnic background; for something they were born into, like religion or country of birth; or something they have no power to change like a disability.

Homosexuality is something that a society should be proud to accept. It indicates a tolerance towards other minority groups (for wont of a better term).

Women are still discriminated against in work, the legal process and other aspects of society but many advances have been made. The participants in the Rising of 1916 were ardent supporters of equality- urging all children of the nation to be treated equally. They advanced towards the goal of female emancipation and Casement did a lot of good work against the slave trade.

We should continue in the same spirit and work towards equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. Otherwise we are poor versions of Republicans.

Alfie Gallagher said...

John,

What Alfie has, (maybe), shown is that non-clerical homosexuals are not as inclined to engage in child molesting as clerical homosexuals are. Not quite the same thing.

I showed no such thing. From my article:

Some Catholics maintain that because the vast majority of the victims of US priests were boys aged between 11 and 14, the abuse was committed by gay men. However, psychotherapist, author and ex-priest Richard Sipe conducted a long-term, large-scale study on priest's sexuality, monitoring 1000 priests for a 25-year period. Sipe found no connection between whether a priest was homosexual and whether he abused minors.

Moreover, even the John Jay report itself affirms that there is no evidence linking homosexuality and clerical sexual abuse of minors. John Jay researchers looked at the behaviour of men before they entered seminary, in seminary and once they were ordained. Based on statistical evidence, they drew the following conclusion:

"Priests who had same-sex sexual experiences either before seminary or in seminary were more likely to have sexual behavior after ordination, but this behavior was most likely with adults. These men were not significantly more likely to abuse minors."

Interestingly, the report notes that openly homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this cohort entered the priesthood, in the mid-1980s, the reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests began to drop and then to level off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more openly gay priests began serving the Church. More importantly, the researchers found that only 18.9% of abusers in the US priesthood were true pederasts/ephebophiles whose victims were exclusively male teens aged between 13 and 17 years old. On the other hand, 42.1% of abusers were described by the researchers as “generalists” with victims of various ages and genders. This would seem to support clinical psychologist Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea’s contention that sexual abuse of minors is a crime of opportunity: the priesthood provided far greater access to teenage boys than any other category of minors and thus it is unsurprising that they comprised the overwhelming majority of victims.

In any case, the modern academic consensus is that homosexuals are no more likely to have sex with minors than heterosexuals. One review of the evidence concludes that "the man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women". So homosexuals and paedophiles/pederasts are, for the most part, separate groups. That is not to say there are no cases of homosexuals having sex with minors, but generally speaking, there is no reason to believe that homosexuals are more dangerous to children and teenagers than heterosexuals. Indeed, if homosexual men as a group were more predisposed to abuse teenagers than heterosexual men, one would expect a lot more instances of openly gay men outside of the priesthood being charged with sexual abuse. To my knowledge, this has not occurred.

Aine said...

I really don't want to even have to begin responding to the ill informed opinions that have been revealed here.

You can't called something a deformity and then claim to not be "anti" it. It doesn't work that way... you can't claim you want people to have equal rights and then deny them those rights. You can't claim to 'not' be against a community and then use stereotypes, assumptions and derogatory terms to describe said community.

The issue of trying to tie homosexuality with pedophilia ...I am not even going to dignify that. The mind that thinks such ways ...well there is something wrong with that mind.

Anthony is right when he stated that it is not being bullied that would be the problem it is the society that would permit such thoughts/norms that is the problem.

I know several families with same sex parents their children are all beautiful well rounded amazing kids .... maybe even more well rounded than the average kid their age.

I work with children of all ages and believe me for years in Belfast i worked with families daily destroying their children's lives - they were all heterosexual parents. In my career of over 18 years I have never had to intervene in a family with same sex parents - this does not mean that there are not bad same sex parents because let's face it there will always be shit parents around hetero/homosexual.

It is not abnormal for children to be raised by responsible, loving humans regardless of color greed or sexual orientation including trans folk !!!!

I read my 16 yr old daughter some of the comments on this page and she was shocked at the blatant disrespect "white cis-gendered expectations" was how she phrased it - she's correct in that.

It is upsetting that my Homeland has decades to go in regard to being a just society for all...... this thread has more than proven that to me. It's actually really sad !!!

I'm done - i don't even want to talk to ya'll anymore because you aren't fucking normal !!!!!!

AM said...

Belfast Bookworm,

you are on the money about the gibberish. Which is all the more disappointing given his obvious ability in writing great pieces as he has done on this site.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; I'm informing you of the facts. Research it and you will see. Men who molest young males are in a huge majority straight. And I mean something like 97%.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. You're really grasping at straws here trying to justify abuse in the church.

Anthony; yes, I agree with you about Larry. Great writer, great politics, homophobe. Kinda doesn't go together.

Belfast Bookworm said...

It'sjustmacker is just as bad. If there were ever going to be any two people who regularly post to TPQ who I'd least have thought would have this attitude it would have been those two.

Thank god for Marty and Fionnuala.

AM said...

itsjustmacker,

An Buachaill makes a valid point. And there is no right not to be offended. Take it on the chin and fight your corner as you do. You have your views and can argue them against the best. of your opponents.

Yes, you are right about bullying so why single out his particular aspect? Surely it is the bullying that needs targetted not the same sex partnerships?

John McGirr said...

Alfie,

My point here is no more than that approximately 80% of clerical abuse has been of a homosexual nature.

Are you disputing this?

Belfast Bookworm,

"John; I'm informing you of the facts. Research it and you will see. Men who molest young males are in a huge majority straight. And I mean something like 97%."

I agree with that. In fact I think that probably 99% of it has been by men with beards. But we are still left with the fact that 80% of clerical abuse has been of a homosexual nature, either consensual or non-consensual.

"You're really grasping at straws here trying to justify abuse in the church."

As I oppose child abuse, oppose homosexuality and regard its gravity as serious as the act of murder, and as I have no connection with the monstrosity of the post-Vatican II 'Catholic Church', I have no interest in justifying it.

It may be true that homosexual parents would be the least abusing parents that ever existed. That does not mean that it would be good for society to allow them to adopt children. It is abnormal and should not be accepted by a healthy society.

larry hughes said...

AM/belfast bookworm.

gibberish?

let gay male couples go to IVF and continually pay good money until one of them developes a baby in his arse. thats fair, equality under the law.

and if two lesbians pay for a sperm donation make the fee 5 million and a signed contract of never claiming maintenance from the donor.

that's fair too. no-one is 'entitled' to adoption. in my view when it comes to vetting, gays should be off the list.

larry hughes said...

John

'The more you protest, the more you are seeming to have an agenda. I thought I was making a quite non-controversial statement of fact.'

Totally correct...agenda! The airy-fairy PC mob think by supporting all weird and freaky deviants and social minorities and missfits they somehow enhance their political credibility. It has gotten to the stage they believe in a warped way they can force the normal vast majority in society to not only accept deviants and freaks but to cower under their protestations and accept black as white for a quiet life.

The more they write the more unhinged they show themselves to be from society at large. If these guys are the champions of a new Ireland it's no wonder they are a political irrelevance too...THANK GOD!! Should some of their daughters have a baby why don't they give that wee child to the 'rainbow-punks'? Easy to deal with an 'abstract' child whilst championing the rights of societies weirdos i suggest.

In Thailand in a population of 64 million people there are an estimated 100,000 ladyboys. Thai authorities impose no restrictions on boob jobs sex change surgery etc, BUT they remain men on their passports. Proper order. Freedom to do what you like with your body, period!

Mackers and belfast bookworm, i hear they do two boob jobs for the price of one out there at xmas...book yer flights quick lads! lmao.

larry hughes said...

Simon

'We should continue in the same spirit and work towards equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. Otherwise we are poor versions of Republicans'

says who...you?

poppycock old chap! yer at the political blackmail shit there. 'If you cant see my vision then ya must be politically inferior or not a good republican'... change the record ffs.

republican...? when marty mcguinness goes on the role of honour be sure and put Burns Dignam Stars and David McVeigh on it too, they paid the price for doing what martyMi6 did for decades. A good republican....? try something more up to date and relevant Simon...boohoo-hoo!!!

John McGirr said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyLT5h-2sCg&feature=related

An Buachaill said...

itsjustmacker,

An Buachaill

I maintain that if you oppose gay adoption then you oppose equality.

You say you marched for equality,
"got battered for it, got locked up for it, got tortured for it. there are those on this blog who will know what I'm talking about and went through the same thing, Equality is exactly what we all marched for"

I have awe, sympathy, support for the injustices that many republicans and others have suffered as a result of the conflict on this island.

However, your argument shows that you fought for equality on PARTICULAR issues, there is a difference.

The fact is that you believe that an individual, or groups of individuals should be treated differently from the majority. That they should have different rules and regulations placed on them simply because they love someone of the same sex.

To me this smacks of inequality.
You are entitled to "take offence" to my statement, but i would say there is a hell of a lot more decent gay people who take offence at the discrimination they face and which you appear to advocate.

itsjustmacker said...

Anthony.

I have nothing against gay people, nor same sex partnerships, but, no amount of debating will make me change my mind about them being allowed to adopt a child, Its the child I'm thinking about, nothing else, as for the bullying, everyone knows that will never stop, Its the bullies who are the weak ones. But you are correct about An Buachaill, I took offence and I should not have done, Its a debate and not personal.

An Buachaill.
Reference my comment to you, If I have offended you I sincerely apologise , No offence intended.

itsjustmacker said...

Belfastbookworm.

"It'sjustmacker is just as bad. If there were ever going to be any two people who regularly post to TPQ who I'd least have thought would have this attitude it would have been those two."

why am I just as bad?.
Is it because I am against Same sex gay couples adopting children?.
I have stated plainly enough the reason why I am against it.
Am I not entitled to an opinion?, when I am thinking of the abuse that child would be getting, more so than other children thus making that child withdraw into themselves. If you think that is ok for the child then I have to differ and say, look at it as I have typed it and think very strongly about the child and not the gay couple, and if you think that would be ok for the child to go through that goading then you are wrong, and, you are not taking the child into consideration whatsoever. I don't rebut you on your comments.

Feel te love said...

This discussion has taken a few turns.We should all remember that an acceptance of equailty, involves people being tolerant of things that they disagree with.

If society was made up of 50% hetros and 50% homos some of the posters on here would likely have different opinions. Because something seems preposterous or unacceptable,it is only this way because of all you have known or been conditioned to believe,tells you it is wrong.

Elton adopts a baby,I thought,what the fuck is this world coming to.That was the my first reaction.So i looked at it from a different view and said to myself where will society be a hundred years from now.What do I find,I am old fashioned and have an attitude which is arcaic and out of touch with those a hundred years from now.

Elton is one of the first and like many different groups,for instance the suffragettes,he is staking his claim to equality for gay people in the world. Could you imagine how wierd it would be to go back in time with a modern progrssive attitude,more than likely you would be seen as abnormal or at the very least off your trolley, though you are not,you just have evolved as part of future society.

Also I dont think it is helpful or fair to talk about gays and pedos in the same discussion.This in itself implies a link between the and I dont see it.

itsjustmacker said...

Gay marriage: Religious 'opt-in' offered, but not to CofE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

An Buachaill said...

itsjustmacker,

No offence taken, i'm not a gay person but think those who are could easily take offence.

larry hughes said...

itsjustmacker

Agree with you here. I don't care what gays get up to together either.

But I don't want to live in a society that tries to force me to believe or accept that dozens of same sex male couples walking through the town or shopping mall with a wee baby in a pram is the 'norm' and perfectly natural. GET LOST CREEPS!! If the child was a girl which parent would it be named after? Next the PC brigade would make it a criminal offence to stare at these freaks in public.


Feel the Love.

If we put all these gays on an isolated island how long will that human society last? ONE GENERATION.

If people like you could go back far enough with your 'enlightened' social views we may not all be here now. Though I doubt that. People wont buy this junk now same as they didn't buy it back in the past.

Why not buy same sex couples a wee doll that talks and pisses itself for Christmas. Or get them a goldfish.

Church of England made the correct decision today. Society is being poisoned by politically indulged weirdos. Makes me think good education has been wasted on some of those promoting this crap. If the RC church had handled the child abuse issue openly and honestly and taken decisive action, there could have been a swing back to religion for moral values sake. But, the RC church is also fucked up. So, they will miss the boat on this gay 'offensive'.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry;' Mackers and belfast bookworm, i hear they do two boob jobs for the price of one out there at xmas...book yer flights quick lads! lmao.'

I'd hardly need a bob job now, would I?

Since I'm a woman.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; why are you unable to understand the difference between male-male child molesters and homosexuality?

You appear to have some sort of mental block to accepting this.

Itsjustmacker; of course you're entitled to an opinion. I was just shocked that someone who seems spot on and sound on most other things is so closed minded in this issue of basic equality.

Kids get bullied because they don't wear cool trainers, because their ma is fat or because their da took off and left them. That's kids for you. But I'm of the mind that they can overcome most things if they come from secure, loving and supportive homes. If any couple, gay or otherwise can provide this then brilliant.

larry hughes said...

belfast bookworm

'I'd hardly need a bob job now, would I?'

Had no idea, that's how bad society has become, can't tell the difference between a man and a woman...dear oh dear!

But!! most people gettin boob jobs are women, am I not correct? TO PLEASE MEN mwhahahahaha lol

AM said...

Itsjustmacker,

you don't strike me as anti-gay at all; just somebody grappling with difference. I recall in the jail when the first gays emerged, defending them, but finding it really odd. Then it just settled down and we got on with it. I think Feel te Love got it right in his comments about Elton John. If somebody comes up with evidence that there is real harm to children, then we can't let prejudice stand in the way of reason. But at the minute there is no reason to be persuaded by little evidence evidence and lots of prejudice.

But we know what way things are going. There will be same sex marriage, same sex adoptions, abortion - same as the right to vote came in, then the right of women to vote, the right of different ethnic groups not to be discriminated against. All the obstacles to these things were sustained by prejudice and now they have been swept away.

AM said...

Itsjustmacker,

here is another trend which will ultimately result in married priests. Watch the theological summersaults used to justify it.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; I've been called many things but never 'lad'! The question your faux pas raises is, why would you have assumed I was a man? Methinks we are getting a deeper insight into your good self., first homophobe, now a misogynist!.. Anything else you want to share?? :-))

And FYI, re women getting boob jobs to please men.. Ive better things to do with my time.

larry hughes said...

belfast bookworm

your comments seemed good enough and logical enough to be those of a male. That's all. Well done, keep it up.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; thanks. I do try. I can only aspire to your greatness of course but one can but endeavour.

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

"John; why are you unable to understand the difference between male-male child molesters and homosexuality?"

Why do you have a hang-up about two terms that mean the same thing? Homosexual molestation is male-male molestation, (or presumably female-female).

I could quite easily deny that 80% of clerical abuse is of a homosexual bent, but why should I? It is a fact.

It amuses me to see the sodomophiles get so offended at the sacred 'H' word. Get over it. Homosexuality is a perversion. When I use that term I am certainly not trying to whitewash the devils incarnate who perpetrated it.

Whether you like it, whether it makes you comfortable or not the so-called clerical abuse scandal is largely of a homosexual nature, while the so-called BBC one is largely of a heterosexual nature. If you prefer to call these ‘same-sex molestation’ and ‘different sex-molestation’ go ahead. They mean the same thing.

John McGirr said...

"If somebody comes up with evidence that there is real harm to children, then we can't let prejudice stand in the way of reason."

'Dr. George Rekers’ research indicates that children raised in homosexual households, especially foster children adopted by homosexuals, suffer from higher rates of depression, trauma, behavioural disorders, gender confusion, and suicidal tendencies.

To quote Dr. Rekers’ main points:

“Viewed impartially in terms of the best interests of the child…empirical research logically leads to the conclusion that laws and regulations should prohibit homosexually-behaving adults from adoption and from foster parenting for at least three substantive reasons stated here…

(1) Homosexual partner relationships are significantly and substantially less stable and more short-lived…

(2) The inherent nature and structure of households with a homosexually-behaving adult or adolescent uniquely endangers children by exposing them to a substantial level of harmful stresses that is over and above usual stress levels in heterosexual homes…

(3) The inherent structure of households with one or more homosexually-behaving member deprives children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment that are only present in heterosexual homes.”'

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; 'sodomophiles' .., and in other news Henry Viii marries Catherine of Aragon.

AM said...

John,

is that the same Rekers who went on a fortnight's holiday with a male prostitute and then had to resign his post? He is a campaigning Christian who believes the bible is the infallible word of god and had his evidence challenged by another psychiatrist or psychologist who argued there was no evidence. Reker's evidence was thrown out of court.

All this is easily found with a quick google search.

Tain Bo said...

I know little about the queer folk then again I know little about football. I am unsure why some protest so loudly on the grounds of personal fear and mask the fear with an unqualified it is in the better interest of children. It would seem that abandoned children become the victims again.
I doubt every homosexual couple want to be parents just the same applies to heterosexuals a good hint would be the fact there are plenty of parentless children in the not so normal environment of state care.
I am unsure why there would be an objection to a partial solution to the problem unfortunately it is not a solution but it would increase the chances for some children to be adopted.
What sounds more normal being raised by the state or being raised in a family setting albeit this one a little to unconventional for some but no less strange than children raised in a polygamist family.
This issue would be more interesting if someone raised by; the state or a homosexual would enlighten us on their view.
Maybe I am daft but I would see the issue of child abandonment as a greater concern.

Tain Bo said...

Larry

“ don't care what gays get up to together either.”

Is that a politically correct cop out obviously it is what they get up to that makes you uncomfortable in your protestation.
As for putting them on an island that journey would have to made every generation nothing like a wee dose of genocide to eliminate your fear I wonder what is worse homosexuality or genocide.

John McGirr said...

Belfast bookworm,

".., and in other news Henry Viii marries Catherine of Aragon."

At least he married a princess. That way there was at least the chance of an heir.

larry hughes said...

Belfast bookworm

'Larry; thanks. I do try. I can only aspire to your greatness of course but one can but endeavour'

+

'John; 'sodomophiles' .., and in other news Henry Viii marries Catherine of Aragon.'

Glory be on-high. Someone on TPQ with a bloody good sense of humour. Need a wee lie-down to get over the revelation. Reaching my 'greatness' requires no stepladder.

John McGirr said...

AM,

"is that the same Rekers who went on a fortnight's holiday with a male prostitute and then had to resign his post?"

Yes, apparently. That will teach me to trust a Prod.

BTW that doesn't negate what he says. Just shows him up to be a hypocrite.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Oooffft.

God bless google.

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

"Oooffft."

I walked into that one. Anthony won't let me forget that in a hurry.

Although, just because he might be 'gay', does that necessarily make him wrong? I will have to think about that one.

"God bless google."

At least you call on the good God. Not like the atheist brigade of the PQ.

AM said...

The evidence he presented to the court of Arkansas was rejected. He believes the world is 6000 years old. How could we take him seriously? He hardly believes what he says when he is having sex with men. So if even he doesn't believe what he says why should anybody else?

We have to consider genuine evidence as I said, not the prejudices of some hyprocritical Baptist minister.

It seems a risky endeavour on your part to rely on material like this.

AM said...

John,

it is not that I won't let you forget it. It is just that it seems that any auld thing can be thrown into the mix to hinder the attainment of accuracy rather than establish it.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; 'At least he married a princess. That way there was at least the chance of an heir.'

Did Henke not divorce that one? I'd have thought you'd be equally as appalled at divorce as you are to homosexuality.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John 'At least you call on the good God. Not like the atheist brigade of the PQ.'

Amen to that.

Simon said...

Larry-" 'We should continue in the same spirit and work towards equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. Otherwise we are poor versions of Republicans'

says who...you? "

Of course me, Larry. I wrote it as my opinion not some edict from the A-Z Book of Republican Ideology.

I was trying to draw an analogy between the Republicans 100 years ago who, lets face it, were well ahead of their time when it came to matters of equality and Republicans today.

As Feel te Love says the world progresses and sometimes the unacceptable becomes acceptable.

larry hughes said...

Tain Bo

Genocide is much worse, especially if aimed at the normal community.

larry hughes said...

Simon

'As Feel te Love says the world progresses and sometimes the unacceptable becomes acceptable'

100% correct. And when it does thats all there is to it. I am merely stating my view that the type of charachters i see on tv at rainbow/gay pide parades are NOT people I would want to raise my child if i died.

They don't and wont get my vote. Others will see it different. Naturally.

Belfast Bookworm said...

Larry; the people you see at gay pride etc are out for the day, having a good time and partying. Some dress flamboyantly, wear make up, whatever but so what?

Have you never dressed up at Halloween? Wore a silly green hat on St Paddys day? Marched round a graveyard on Easter Sunday with a lily pinned to your lapel?

I'd imagine you have. How would you feel if am outsider looking in said they'd never want the likes of you looking after a child.

Simon said...

Larry, I think people should have the right to choose the attributes of who adopts their child. I believe you can specify religion for example. Nothing springs to mind about what would be wrong with specifying the sexual orientation of the parents- some people would have strong opinions regarding having two role models for example.

Although there are other safeguards with adoption nothing could guarantee total safety for an adopted child. For example a straight couple may turn out to be worse than a rejected gay couple and vice versa.

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

“Did Henke not divorce that one? I'd have thought you'd be equally as appalled at divorce as you are to homosexuality.”

Absolutely. If he had stuck with Catherine, then England would have remained Catholic and we would have a far better percentage on the census, although with no prods there would not have been a plantation, or if there were it would have mixed in better and not led to partition. Divorce has been the scourge of every country where it has been established.

AM,

Which of these three points do you think is wrong?

“(1) Homosexual partner relationships are significantly and substantially less stable and more short-lived…

(2) The inherent nature and structure of households with a homosexually-behaving adult or adolescent uniquely endangers children by exposing them to a substantial level of harmful stresses that is over and above usual stress levels in heterosexual homes…

(3) The inherent structure of households with one or more homosexually-behaving member deprives children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment that are only present in heterosexual homes.”'

They sound like pure, common sense to me.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; 'Absolutely. If he had stuck with Catherine, then England would have remained Catholic and we would have a far better percentage on the census, although with no prods there would not have been a plantation, or if there were it would have mixed in better and not led to partition. Divorce has been the scourge of every country where it has been established.'

Yeah. Like that's the problem.

Bury Britain's greedy imperialism why don't you, pretend that all Ireland's troubles is down to a silly little tribal fight between Catholics and prods. The media has portrayed it as so for years, you may as well chuck your tuppence worth in.

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

I absolutely agree that the way that history has played out that what has happened in Ireland has little to do with religion, although it has historically cemented differences.

My only point is that history would not have played out as it has if there had not have been a disparity of religions. Although having said that, it is quite likely that other differences would have been pitted one against the other to have achieved similar aims.

Re-writing history is a dangerous thing to try to do. I just don't think a Catholic England would have produced a Cromwell. Who knows?

I am against divorce though. I fail to see any benefits that it has brought about. Progress in such things is generally a myth.

That is another reason why I oppose homosexual marriage. If it were such a great thing, surely it would have happened before. I mean we have been around for several thousand years now. Isn't it a clue that it doesn't exist in any society of antiquity? Indeed it only rears its head as a society descends in to decadence as a final aberration before it is swept away.

itsjustmacker said...

Anthony.

I would say No 1 is wrong!

itsjustmacker said...

Ooooops, my last post was to be Directed towards John Mc Girr as a reply and Not towards Anthony (AM).
Sorry about that, time to shut this speed machine down me thinks.

John McGirr said...

Itsjustmacker,

"I would say No 1 is wrong!"
I.e.'(1) Homosexual partner relationships are significantly and substantially less stable and more short-lived…'

Do you think so? Read this link, there are some surprising findings.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; Cromwell was a bastard because cromwell was a bastard. Not because he was a pradestant!

With regards to your comments about divorce, I dont think it would be for me. But then again I'm happy in my marriage. If I wasn't and it was failing, I was being treated badly or disrepecfully then I'm quite sure there would be benefit in me divorcing. Benefit to me and my mental health, benefit to my kids, my job.

I think the only reason same sex marriage is really only coming to the fore now is because as a society we are starting to become a bit more tolerant of some things and let go of the religious hangups that have been instilled in us. People are less afraid to be who they are too. If same sex marriages are failing then surely societal pressures, discrimination and harassment plays are part. We know this happens.

I think it can only be a good thing. Live and let live.

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

"Live and let live."

I wonder if those sentiments are inclusive of all, or is it another case of ‘live and let live’ for those who back the liberal agenda of our day. Such words never seem to apply to those who don’t. From time immemorial homosexuality has been condemned, but now, we must accept it or forfeit all of our rights. Not to accept it now makes people unacceptable as teachers, parents and denies people the right to adopt or foster children. Even to express reservations about ‘gay marriage’ now leaves a person open to a police investigation and the loss of employment.

I wonder if ‘live and let live’ includes the unborn who are being slaughtered all over the world, and on whom a particular assault is being planned in our own land. I wonder does it mean that we have the right to oppose the breaking down of all that we hold dear as society collapses around us. I wonder does it include the right of Catholics not to be offended on a daily basis by a liberal establishment that sees that one religion as fair game to attack, while demanding peaceful co-existence for everything and everyone else.

Isn’t it strange how those words are so selectively applied and always seem to exclude what until recently were the views of most people in Ireland.

larry hughes said...

Not buying the dressed up line. Ive seen enough of them about the place to know different.

On 'Enery the eitfth...

nothin to do with religion. Its a pack of outsiders who have invaded 49 countries and counting and called every one of the natives terrorists. Its their MO/Ronseal moment... they invade smaller nations and fuck people about. People on their coat tails like Roberts mob play cheerleader and get some sick buz out of it all. Probably beat the hell outa working for a living back in those days. Like security force jobs ans screws here for 40 odd years.

No John, not a religion issue...a boot them ta fuck out issue.

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; 'I wonder if those sentiments are inclusive of all, or is it another case of ‘live and let live’ for those who back the liberal agenda of our day.'

I personally try to apply this everything - difficult as it is sometimes, but I believe that bigotry in all it's forms should be challenged and that's what I did in this thread.

For me, life is sacred so I wont be drawn into an abortion debate with you.

Feel te love said...

Boot who out larry and where to?.

larry hughes said...

Boot who out larry and where to?.

The british Army out of any/latest nation they are 'playing' in just now, as it's obvious from sky tv today the brit government has no clue what they are doing wherever they are...?

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

"I believe that bigotry in all it's forms should be challenged and that's what I did in this thread."

I don't believe that if a person accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church they should be called bigots for so-doing, do you?

I do share your condemnation of all bigots and bigotry everywhere though, particularly when they are aimed at people whose only crime is following the Catholic Faith. Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well and is not confined to the DUP.

"For me, life is sacred so I wont be drawn into an abortion debate with you."

I thought that would be your position. I have no intention of debating the subject with anyone as it has all been done before and this is the wrong thread to do it on.

John McGirr said...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-study

Feel te love said...

Larry.Thank you for the clarification,this thread has gone in so many directions I have become unsure about what i am reading.

Am in total agreement with that sentiment but Larry what can we do.We have been overrun by touts and collaberaters,Touts,outflanked by SF,pushed to surrender by a loyalist campaign of murder and still we live under the flag of a foreign state,a surprising outcome!

We did not surrender Larry but our supposed leadership did. We were not defeated but those so-called intellectuals in SF managed to turn a stalemate into defeat at the negociation table.

It is no coincidence that when the Brits need a break from the Irish problem,so that they can go of and impose themselves on some other peoples that the Irish always weigh in and allow them to free up thier resorces,by latching onto a hook with a red hering attached as bait.

In the current case it is home rule mark 2 overseen and adjudicated by an honest broker.The Secretary of State.

larry hughes said...

John

'I don't believe that if a person accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church they should be called bigots for so-doing, do you?'

Agreed ev1 is perfectly as entitled to be as fucked up as I am. But that should also preclude mnost of us from adoption!

Belfast Bookworm said...

John; 'I don't believe that if a person accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church they should be called bigots for so-doing, do you?'

If the teaching is bigoted in its very nature and those who believe and advocate the bigotry, then yes John, I will call them bigots.

AM said...

Belfast Bookworm,

John's a bigot but I like him!

Belfast Bookworm said...

Anthony; I'm sure that's a Monty Python quote?

Fionnuala Perry said...

Mackers,
Ex-prisoners are not considered suitable parents, nor are the over-weight or smokers, so the homosexuals are not on their own.
Incredible really, considering that stats real stats not John religious zealot statistics will show that, the big hetrosexual he men are more likely to abuse children than the latter.
I think when you read some of the comments written here by the ultra hetro males it sounds if they are actually trying to convince us of something. 'The lads protest too much' just a thought!

John McGirr said...

Belfast Bookworm,

"If the teaching is bigoted in its very nature and those who believe and advocate the bigotry, then yes John, I will call them bigots."

I guess I will have to 'come out' as a proud 'bigot' then. Sure I have been called worse.

But you will too, for being intolerant of my religion.

AM,

"John's a bigot but I like him!"

Lol, Anthony, you are not helping my cause.

We could always argue over which of us are the purist bigots.

larry hughes said...

fionnuala

oh ffs...

'I think when you read some of the comments written here by the ultra hetro males it sounds if they are actually trying to convince us of something. 'The lads protest too much' just a thought!'

women are better mummies than men. Now you know in your wee belfast heart you'll never be a man, so when you're finished doing the breakfast dishes fetch Albert another mug of tae. 'Good girl'.

larry hughes said...

John

Here's a recent study undertaken in the biggest Irish institution of all by Dr. McCabe regarding the problems in Irish society. I thought you might agree??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKpThu1JtUI

AM said...

Belfast Bookworm,

I'd feel safe leaving my child with a gay man.

Absolutely. Or woman.

John

Do 'homophobes' not have a right to tolerance and diversity?

As much as racists and other bigots.
Clerical rape is clerical rape – whether carried out by heterosexuals or homosexuals is secondary to the crime and the cover up. Jimmy Savile is on a par with Sean Fortune. What sex they preferred their victims to be is secondary. And of course each was covered for by the institution to which they belonged.

Larry,

It's 'in your face' kind of freakery stuff.

That or something similar is often said about protests. Sometimes banging your shoe works. It looks more like gaiety (pardon the pun) than freakery to me. Clerics in funny hats communicating with spacemen and worshipping zombies I find freaky but others don’t.

AM said...

John,

More revealing that Belfast Bookworm’s question is you not answering it. There are people who think religious nuts and fascists should be able to have bring up children but gays should not. I would worry about a child brought up by a religious nut but would not advocate banning it. If the child was treated well in a religious family, that is what matters. If we take an extreme example should the Phelps family be allowed to adopt children?

AM said...

Itsjustmacker

I am not at all persuaded by your defence of the term "deformity". How consenting adults of whatever sex pleasure each other is a matter for them. The state and church should keep away from the bedroom. Why we even bother discussing the issue in terms of normal and abnormal is something that might deserve closer scrutiny.

Are gay relationships harmful? Not that I can see.

Is anti gay bigotry harmful? Very much so. And I accept that you don’t come at it from an anti-gay position.

John,

If Jimmy Saville generally attacked females, clerics generally attacked males. If the one is heterosexual abuse, the other is homosexual abuse.

A better term is rape or sexual abuse. Rather than term Savile a heterosexual abuser I would call him rapist celebrity, just as we would call a cleric a rapist priest or vicar or whatever. The sex of the victim is less significant than the horror they sustained.

Alfie,

I showed no such thing ... Sipe found no connection between whether a priest was homosexual and whether he abused minors ... Moreover, even the John Jay report itself affirms that there is no evidence
linking homosexuality and clerical sexual abuse of minors ... If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more openly gay priests began serving the Church.


Sort of throws a different light on it from the one the religious right would have you believe. Good for you.

AM said...

Simon

We should continue in the same spirit and work towards equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. Otherwise we are poor versions of Republicans.

A rights driven republicanism should have no problem with that philosophy.

AM said...

John,


I don't believe that if a person accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church they should be called bigots for so-doing

If the Church teaches bigotry they should be.

Simon said...

AM: "A rights driven republicanism should have no problem with that philosophy."

I believe that Republicanism has to be inherently rights-driven otherwise why be Republican at all? James Connolly presciently warned about the possibility of gaining independence but being governed by Irish tyrants. The Proclamation states about "cherishing all the children of the nation equally" which I take, in it's context, to mean all citizens.

Republicanism devoid of ethics, morals and rights is clearly a bastardization of what Republicanism has been for centuries. The first Republicans were the United Irishmen and all the way down the line including thankfully to the present day Republicanism has been "rights driven".

Some people may say why look to the past for guidance and I would reply by explaining that people from the past gave inspirational leadership. I find it inspirational significantly because of a tolerance of difference and protection of the weak- nationally and internationally. Like female emancipation and the work of people like Casement against the slave trade or, more recently, to solidarity with people like the Palestinians who are constantly being persecuted and oppressed.

I would rather look to the past to a rights-driven Republicanism than a possible future Republicanism that is not.

AM said...

Simon

I believe that Republicanism has to be inherently rights-driven otherwise why be Republican at all?

I feel republicans should be examining this statement rather than strategising about armed campaigns which always end up as rights denying.

Republicanism devoid of ethics, morals and rights is clearly a bastardization of what Republicanism has been for centuries.

How far did we in the Provos bastardise republicanism do you think?

thankfully to the present day Republicanism has been "rights driven".

I believe this could be seriously challenged.

I would rather look to the past to a rights-driven Republicanism than a possible future Republicanism that is not.

The argument could be made that a future republicanism has a chance to be rights driven in a way that a past republicanism was not.

Simon said...

AM- "I believe this could be seriously challenged". Ho ho. Me too. I realised this as soon as I hit the "publish" button.

I think the PIRA damaged Republican ethics by the poor management of reports of sexual abuse. Nepotism and favouritism were the 'isms' of the day. Although the people responsible may have been in a minority it happened to too many women and justice wasn't done in too many cases. Hell, one case is too many but miscarriages of justice occurred more than a handful of times.

Sexual crime and lack of punishment by Republicans before the 1969/1970 split is an unknown quantity so comparisons are difficult.

However, I believe this is a reason why we need an official police service with accountability and scrutiny bodies to prevent nepotism on the one hand and cruel exploitation of reported crimes for security reasons on the other. I believe support for the police before partition is necessary if partition is on the long finger for exactly this reason. However they have made a mess of it with MI5 involvement, the poor performance by some police ombudsmen and lack of power for the policing board.

Non-involvement in the drug trade as confirmed by people who would otherwise like to say different like John Alderdice for example and the anecdotal security accounts of the PIRA calling the police to report a cocaine smuggling operation for instance confirms a moral side. Although Alderdice claims lack of involvement in drugs was purely to avoid the accompanying informers.

Also, criminal elements were often expelled by the PIRA like the Dublin faction who raised funds for personal use.

The knee-capping of sectarian killers who killed a Protestant gentleman in North Belfast was one of many indications that the PIRA paid more than lip-service to anti-sectarianism although then again there were too many instances of sectarian killing particularly in the 1970s. Loyalists proprtionately killed more uninvolved Protestants than the PIRA did and numerically weren't far behind.

Sinn Fein's vocal support for some non-security human rights issues was welcome also.

So to conclude I believe the jury is out but leans towards a moral army. Much more moral than conventional armies in any case. I suppose ethics often accompany armed combatants who believe in a just cause and have a benign ideology and philosophy as opposed to career soldiers, 'adventure' seekers or prison dodgers which are found in most conventional armies.

AM said...

Simon,

Nepotism and favouritism were the 'isms' of the day.

Have the five isms of republicanism been usurped by these two?

we need an official police service with accountability and scrutiny bodies to prevent nepotism on the one hand and cruel exploitation of reported crimes for security reasons on the other.

This would seem self evident. Have the people a right to policing? How can we argue they don’t? How does republicanism address policing without clashing with that right?

Can republicans support the armed British police? I don’t see how they can. But they can let policing run its course and seek to hold it to account. They don’t need to say they politically endorse the police and they don’t need to shoot them. Republicans can politically oppose the police without resorting to arms.

Because the Provos had no bottom line it would not surprise me if they had have got involved in the drug trade and sought to silence anyone asking questions. I don’t believe they were ever in the trade as such (taxing it might be a different matter.) But the leaders could easily have pushed it and the rest would have followed, same as happened with everything else.

So to conclude I believe the jury is out but leans towards a moral army.


An arguable case can be made for that.


I suppose ethics often accompany armed combatants who believe in a just cause and have a benign ideology and philosophy as opposed to career soldiers, 'adventure' seekers or prison dodgers which are found in most conventional armies.

Yet, often it is the most ideologically committed that inflict the worst atrocities: driven by ideological zeal they seek to 'perfect' the world in their own image. Not very different from those who set out with religious fervour.

Simon said...

AM:"often it is the most ideologically committed that inflict the worst atrocities". True. Depends on the ideology as well I suppose.

I agree wholeheartedly with your 'hold the police to account but don't shoot them' argument.